Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
