Pre-amendment reassessment limitation bars late notices under the preserved regime, invalidating consequential reassessment for affected earlier asses...
Cash-sales explanations for bank deposits require documentary reconciliation; reassessment notice survived where effective response time was available...
Functional comparability in transfer pricing prevents ad hoc arm's length adjustments where functions, assets, risks and reliable comparables are unes...
Contingency expenses, exempt-income disallowance, and royalty benchmarking: unsupported adjustments were deleted under consistent accounting and trans...
Page of 4920
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 98394 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal against the penalty levied u/s 270A. The Tribunal held that it was not a case of misrepresentation or suppression of facts, as the assessee had duly disclosed all relevant facts before the Assessing Officer and in the return of income. The Tribunal emphasized that for levying penalty u/s 270A, the Assessing Officer must establish misreporting of income under the specific clauses of sub-section (9) of Section 270A, which was not done in this case. The assessee's belief regarding the applicability of exemption u/s 54F was bona fide, and there was no question of misrepresentation or suppression of facts when all facts were duly stated and reported.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal against the penalty levied u/s 270A. The Tribunal held that it was not a case of misrepresentation or suppression of facts, as the assessee had duly disclosed all relevant facts before the Assessing Officer and in the return of income. The Tribunal emphasized that for levying penalty u/s 270A, the Assessing Officer must establish misreporting of income under the specific clauses of sub-section (9) of Section 270A, which was not done in this case. The assessee's belief regarding the applicability of exemption u/s 54F was bona fide, and there was no question of misrepresentation or suppression of facts when all facts were duly stated and reported.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4920 
