Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed for excess deduction claimed u/s 10B. The assessee furnished all relevant facts for computing total income, and provided detailed explanations regarding the claim u/s 10B, including the number of manufacturing divisions, bifurcation of expenditure, and availability of carried forward losses. The explanation was not found false, and the onus to prove falsity lies on the revenue. The claim was an allowable deduction, though the quantum was reworked by the Assessing Officer using different arithmetic. All details and justifications were provided in the return itself. The amount of tax sought to be evaded under explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) was indeterminable for imposing penalty. The assessee's decision to not appeal the reduction of claim does not imply lack of bona fides. The CIT(A) rightly deleted the penalty, and no interference is warranted.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed for excess deduction claimed u/s 10B. The assessee furnished all relevant facts for computing total income, and provided detailed explanations regarding the claim u/s 10B, including the number of manufacturing divisions, bifurcation of expenditure, and availability of carried forward losses. The explanation was not found false, and the onus to prove falsity lies on the revenue. The claim was an allowable deduction, though the quantum was reworked by the Assessing Officer using different arithmetic. All details and justifications were provided in the return itself. The amount of tax sought to be evaded under explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) was indeterminable for imposing penalty. The assessee's decision to not appeal the reduction of claim does not imply lack of bona fides. The CIT(A) rightly deleted the penalty, and no interference is warranted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
