Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
381 to 400 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed on the assessee for not filing the return of income (ROI), despite having a bona fide belief that the income was non-taxable and tax deducted at source (TDS) was deducted on the income. The assessee, a non-profit welfare fund, filed the return and paid the tax in full after receiving a notice u/s 148, before receiving the recorded reasons. The Assessing Officer accepted the return and tax paid, with no findings of concealment of income. Relying on relevant judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that the levy of penalty was unjustified and quashed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c), allowing the assessee's appeal.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed on the assessee for not filing the return of income (ROI), despite having a bona fide belief that the income was non-taxable and tax deducted at source (TDS) was deducted on the income. The assessee, a non-profit welfare fund, filed the return and paid the tax in full after receiving a notice u/s 148, before receiving the recorded reasons. The Assessing Officer accepted the return and tax paid, with no findings of concealment of income. Relying on relevant judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that the levy of penalty was unjustified and quashed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c), allowing the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
