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 ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
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.