Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Penalties levied u/ss 271D and 271E were challenged. The assessee was found to have violated Sections 269SS and 269T. However, there was no concrete finding that the assessee accepted loans or repaid them in violation of these sections. The Revenue's only evidence was the statement of the Director of Sudama Resorts, whose cheques were found with the assessee. The assessee sought cross-examination of the Director, which was not granted by the Assessing Officer. This statement lacks evidentiary value as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Andaman Timber Industries. Moreover, the Director of Sudama Resorts had surrendered income related to the cheques found during the search. There was no clear finding based on authentic evidence that the assessee violated Sections 269SS and 269T. Therefore, the penalties u/ss 271D and 271E were not applicable, following the ITAT Pune's decision in Sneh Builders. The assessee's appeals were allowed.
Penalties levied u/ss 271D and 271E were challenged. The assessee was found to have violated Sections 269SS and 269T. However, there was no concrete finding that the assessee accepted loans or repaid them in violation of these sections. The Revenue's only evidence was the statement of the Director of Sudama Resorts, whose cheques were found with the assessee. The assessee sought cross-examination of the Director, which was not granted by the Assessing Officer. This statement lacks evidentiary value as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Andaman Timber Industries. Moreover, the Director of Sudama Resorts had surrendered income related to the cheques found during the search. There was no clear finding based on authentic evidence that the assessee violated Sections 269SS and 269T. Therefore, the penalties u/ss 271D and 271E were not applicable, following the ITAT Pune's decision in Sneh Builders. The assessee's appeals were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
