Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Page of 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4381 to 4400 of 96536 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 for denying deduction u/s 80DD for a disabled person with over 80% disability. The assessee, a retired individual, had submitted required medical documents but the deduction was denied. The ITAT held that merely making an incorrect claim which is not substantiated does not attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c), relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Reliance Petro-products Private Limited. The assessee had earned interest income but brought it to tax during assessment proceedings. Considering the facts, circumstances, and assessee's explanation, the ITAT set aside the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) and allowed the appeal, holding that the lower authorities erroneously treated the penalty as automatic without considering Section 273.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed for denying deduction u/s 80DD for a disabled person with over 80% disability. The assessee, a retired individual, had submitted required medical documents but the deduction was denied. The ITAT held that merely making an incorrect claim which is not substantiated does not attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c), relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Reliance Petro-products Private Limited. The assessee had earned interest income but brought it to tax during assessment proceedings. Considering the facts, circumstances, and assessee's explanation, the ITAT set aside the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) and allowed the appeal, holding that the lower authorities erroneously treated the penalty as automatic without considering Section 273.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
