Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
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 ...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
