Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed u/ss 271(1)(c) and 271AAB of the Income Tax Act for additional income brought to tax owing to a search and seizure action. The Tribunal observed that the income was assessed based on material seized during the search, supported by a declaration u/s 131. The assessee's contention of voluntary surrender was rejected, as the additional income came to light solely due to the search action. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedents, including MAK Data Pvt Ltd and K P Madhusudan, which established that penalty is leviable when income is finally assessed higher than the returned income, irrespective of whether the variation arose from voluntary surrender or otherwise. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for the relevant assessment years and restored the penalty orders.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed u/ss 271(1)(c) and 271AAB of the Income Tax Act for additional income brought to tax owing to a search and seizure action. The Tribunal observed that the income was assessed based on material seized during the search, supported by a declaration u/s 131. The assessee's contention of voluntary surrender was rejected, as the additional income came to light solely due to the search action. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedents, including MAK Data Pvt Ltd and K P Madhusudan, which established that penalty is leviable when income is finally assessed higher than the returned income, irrespective of whether the variation arose from voluntary surrender or otherwise. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for the relevant assessment years and restored the penalty orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
