Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
