Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not leviable on additional income offered by the assessee in response to a notice issued u/s 148, as held in Kirit Dahyabhai Patel and Ravi Sud cases. Regarding the addition u/s 69 on account of a bank deposit, mere cash deposit cannot be considered the assessee's income. Failure to file an appeal does not imply admission by the assessee. Each addition cannot be the basis for levying a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) unless the Assessing Officer finds that the assessee deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed income. The assessee contended that the bank account credited with the deposit was shown in the cash book, and the deposit was not unexplained. Considering these facts, no justification exists for levying a penalty, even on the addition. The assessee's appeal is allowed.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not leviable on additional income offered by the assessee in response to a notice issued u/s 148, as held in Kirit Dahyabhai Patel and Ravi Sud cases. Regarding the addition u/s 69 on account of a bank deposit, mere cash deposit cannot be considered the assessee's income. Failure to file an appeal does not imply admission by the assessee. Each addition cannot be the basis for levying a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) unless the Assessing Officer finds that the assessee deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed income. The assessee contended that the bank account credited with the deposit was shown in the cash book, and the deposit was not unexplained. Considering these facts, no justification exists for levying a penalty, even on the addition. The assessee's appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.