Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Employee conflict disclosures and investment restrictions expand with new recusal duties, post-employment limits, and compliance reporting requirement...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
