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...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT held that no specific charge was framed against the assessee in the show-cause notice issued u/s 274 read with Section 270A for misreporting of income. While the assessment order did not specify the exact charge, the show-cause notice initiated penalty proceedings for both under-reporting and misreporting of income. However, in the penalty order, the Assessing Officer concluded it was a case of under-reporting due to misreporting of income and levied penalty u/s 270A(9)(a). ITAT decided in favour of the assessee on the ground that no clear charge was framed in the show-cause notice.
ITAT held that no specific charge was framed against the assessee in the show-cause notice issued u/s 274 read with Section 270A for misreporting of income. While the assessment order did not specify the exact charge, the show-cause notice initiated penalty proceedings for both under-reporting and misreporting of income. However, in the penalty order, the Assessing Officer concluded it was a case of under-reporting due to misreporting of income and levied penalty u/s 270A(9)(a). ITAT decided in favour of the assessee on the ground that no clear charge was framed in the show-cause notice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
