Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
The Appellate Tribunal held that the penalty imposed u/s 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with notices u/s 142(1) was not legally valid. The Assessing Officer failed to prove actual service of notices u/s 142(1), and willful default by the assessee could not be established. The Tribunal observed that separate penalty proceedings should have been initiated for each failure, instead of a consolidated penalty order. In the absence of proof of service, the penalty was deleted, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
The Appellate Tribunal held that the penalty imposed u/s 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with notices u/s 142(1) was not legally valid. The Assessing Officer failed to prove actual service of notices u/s 142(1), and willful default by the assessee could not be established. The Tribunal observed that separate penalty proceedings should have been initiated for each failure, instead of a consolidated penalty order. In the absence of proof of service, the penalty was deleted, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
