Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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.