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...
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 
