Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
