Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
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 
