Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Tribunal held that the assessee's case falls within clause (c) of Section 271AAB(1) as the admission made by the assessee was not honored in the return of income. Clauses (a) and (b) were not applicable. The Assessing Officer correctly invoked clause (c) and provided adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee as per Section 274(1). The assessee did not offer any explanation against the impugned addition and merely pleaded to keep the proceedings in abeyance. The penalty order was within the time limit prescribed u/s 275(1). There was no violation of the principles of natural justice as adequate opportunity was provided. The income surrendered but not admitted would fall under the purview of undisclosed income. The assessee's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's case falls within clause (c) of Section 271AAB(1) as the admission made by the assessee was not honored in the return of income. Clauses (a) and (b) were not applicable. The Assessing Officer correctly invoked clause (c) and provided adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee as per Section 274(1). The assessee did not offer any explanation against the impugned addition and merely pleaded to keep the proceedings in abeyance. The penalty order was within the time limit prescribed u/s 275(1). There was no violation of the principles of natural justice as adequate opportunity was provided. The income surrendered but not admitted would fall under the purview of undisclosed income. The assessee's appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.