Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Disallowance made u/s 43B regarding expenses claimed by the assessee. There was confusion about which limb penalty is to be levied. The disallowance confirmed by the Tribunal u/s 43B is not due to concealment of income by the assessee, who filed all details pertaining to the claimed expenditure. However, certain expenditure could be allowed only on actual payment, leading to disallowance u/s 43B. Regarding the addition on increase in liability, the assessee provided confirmations, and there is no doubt about their veracity. Merely because the addition has been partly confirmed by the Tribunal cannot be a reason to levy penalty. The confirmations filed by the assessee were not verified by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Levy of penalty is not a mechanical procedure and requires checks and balances. Additions sustained by the Tribunal is not a fit case to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The assessee's appeal is allowed.
Disallowance made u/s 43B regarding expenses claimed by the assessee. There was confusion about which limb penalty is to be levied. The disallowance confirmed by the Tribunal u/s 43B is not due to concealment of income by the assessee, who filed all details pertaining to the claimed expenditure. However, certain expenditure could be allowed only on actual payment, leading to disallowance u/s 43B. Regarding the addition on increase in liability, the assessee provided confirmations, and there is no doubt about their veracity. Merely because the addition has been partly confirmed by the Tribunal cannot be a reason to levy penalty. The confirmations filed by the assessee were not verified by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Levy of penalty is not a mechanical procedure and requires checks and balances. Additions sustained by the Tribunal is not a fit case to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The assessee's appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
