Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of This case deals with the levy of penalties u/ss 271AAA and 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act in relation to various additions made to the assessee's income based on seized documents during a search operation. The key points are: Penalty u/s 271AAA upheld for undisclosed consideration from land sale based on seized documents mentioning assessee's name and transaction details. Assessee failed to rebut the evidence. Penalty upheld for undisclosed capital gains from land sale confirmed by appellate authorities based on seized material. Penalty u/s 271AAA deleted for additions made on a protective basis, following judicial precedents. Penalties u/ss 271AAA and 271(1)(c) are mutually exclusive for the same assessment year. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) upheld for unexplained bank deposits as assessee failed to provide explanations, and additions were confirmed by appellate authorities in quantum proceedings. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) deleted for additions based solely on seized documents without corroborative evidence regarding the purchase of property by the assessee and their father. Mere entries in seized material were insufficient. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) upheld for unexplained bank deposits in the assessee's brother's account, as the assessee could not provide a plaus.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
