Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
ITAT upheld penalties imposed under s.271(1)(c) against appellant firm for multiple violations. Unexplained cash credits in partners' capital accounts violated Explanation-1 requirements as firm failed to provide satisfactory explanations. Penalty sustained for understated business income where appellant's claim of inadvertent omission was rejected. Additional penalties confirmed for false claims regarding FBT expenses, donations, and prior period expenses where appellant admitted inadmissibility before CIT(A). Tribunal found appellant failed to substantiate expense genuineness and maintained CIT(A)'s finding that these constituted wrong claims warranting penalties. All grounds of appeal dismissed, confirming original penalty orders.
ITAT upheld penalties imposed under s.271(1)(c) against appellant firm for multiple violations. Unexplained cash credits in partners' capital accounts violated Explanation-1 requirements as firm failed to provide satisfactory explanations. Penalty sustained for understated business income where appellant's claim of inadvertent omission was rejected. Additional penalties confirmed for false claims regarding FBT expenses, donations, and prior period expenses where appellant admitted inadmissibility before CIT(A). Tribunal found appellant failed to substantiate expense genuineness and maintained CIT(A)'s finding that these constituted wrong claims warranting penalties. All grounds of appeal dismissed, confirming original penalty orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.