Statutory transfer formalities invalidated alleged share and property transfers, while retrospective record manipulation constituted oppression and mi...
Provisional attachment of laundered funds and equivalent-value property sustained, with statutory protection limited to pension, gratuity and providen...
Insolvency moratorium does not shield company officers from cheque dishonour prosecution for liability arising before corporate insolvency proceedings...
Advance-ruling mechanism governs pending GST classification, exemption and taxability disputes, limiting writ review once the specialised forum functi...
Page of 4788
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
581 to 600 of 95752 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
