Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
The assessee was penalized u/s 271(1)(c) for addition of sale consideration due to lack of vouchers. The CIT(A) partly confirmed the addition for want of vouchers. The assessee argued that no penalty is maintainable as the transaction was truly disclosed, and long-term capital gains were reported. The ITAT held that the CIT(A) restricted the addition after examining the evidence, indicating the assessee succeeded partially. The AO imposed the penalty solely for non-submission of supporting vouchers. Relying on the CAFCO SYNDICATE SHIPPING CO. case, the ITAT ruled that penalty cannot be imposed for non-furnishing evidence as it does not amount to concealment of income. Consequently, the penalty levied by the AO was deleted, and the assessee's grounds were allowed.
The assessee was penalized u/s 271(1)(c) for addition of sale consideration due to lack of vouchers. The CIT(A) partly confirmed the addition for want of vouchers. The assessee argued that no penalty is maintainable as the transaction was truly disclosed, and long-term capital gains were reported. The ITAT held that the CIT(A) restricted the addition after examining the evidence, indicating the assessee succeeded partially. The AO imposed the penalty solely for non-submission of supporting vouchers. Relying on the CAFCO SYNDICATE SHIPPING CO. case, the ITAT ruled that penalty cannot be imposed for non-furnishing evidence as it does not amount to concealment of income. Consequently, the penalty levied by the AO was deleted, and the assessee's grounds were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
