Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
