Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as assessee failed to file return u/s 139 or in response to notice u/s 148, despite receiving substantial contract receipts of Rs. 2.5 crore. ITAT upheld penalty, rejecting assessee's plea that addition was estimated, as assessee defied statutory requirements and didn't furnish details during assessment proceedings. Assessee's contention of auditor's failure being the cause was rejected, as filing return u/s 139 is assessee's responsibility. Penalty confirmed.
AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as assessee failed to file return u/s 139 or in response to notice u/s 148, despite receiving substantial contract receipts of Rs. 2.5 crore. ITAT upheld penalty, rejecting assessee's plea that addition was estimated, as assessee defied statutory requirements and didn't furnish details during assessment proceedings. Assessee's contention of auditor's failure being the cause was rejected, as filing return u/s 139 is assessee's responsibility. Penalty confirmed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
