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...
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 4780
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
