Assessing Officer jurisdiction after statutory transfer invalidates reassessment notices issued by transferor officers and nullifies resulting proceed...
Consequential appeal-effect orders must implement rectification deleting working-capital adjustments and reconsider the resulting arm's-length range c...
Discounted cash flow valuation protects share premium where projections are reasonable, while audited book expenses defeat unexplained-expenditure add...
Section 54 construction relief survives pre-transfer commencement when completion occurs within the statutory period, excluding ineligible spouse-owne...
Fraud classification show-cause notices founded on inconclusive forensic audit material cannot sustain action, permitting fresh proceedings on conclus...
Page of 4886
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 97710 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 (ITAT) allowed the assessee's appeal and directed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act to be deleted. The Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income, while the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] passed the penalty order on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income without issuing a fresh show-cause notice. The ITAT held that since the penalty proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer on one ground (concealment) and the CIT(A) passed the order on another ground (inaccurate particulars) without commencing fresh proceedings, the penalty order was without jurisdiction and bad in law. The assessee's agreement to offer the income to buy peace and avoid litigation did not cure the jurisdictional defect in the penalty proceedings.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the assessee's appeal and directed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act to be deleted. The Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income, while the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] passed the penalty order on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income without issuing a fresh show-cause notice. The ITAT held that since the penalty proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer on one ground (concealment) and the CIT(A) passed the order on another ground (inaccurate particulars) without commencing fresh proceedings, the penalty order was without jurisdiction and bad in law. The assessee's agreement to offer the income to buy peace and avoid litigation did not cure the jurisdictional defect in the penalty proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4886 
