Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
