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...
HC upheld penalty under s271(1)(c) for concealment of income where appellant transferred stock-in-trade at inflated market value and withdrew profits without full disclosure. The formation of firm and transaction pattern constituted a tax evasion scheme. Mere filing of capital account with returns was deemed insufficient for true disclosure. Court found appellant's explanation patently false and unsubstantiated as bona fide. Despite Explanation 1 to s147 being inapplicable, Explanation 1 to s271 supported penalty imposition. The minimum prescribed penalty was justified given the deliberate device adopted to evade taxes, and the finality of income addition assessment. Appeal dismissed.
HC upheld penalty under s271(1)(c) for concealment of income where appellant transferred stock-in-trade at inflated market value and withdrew profits without full disclosure. The formation of firm and transaction pattern constituted a tax evasion scheme. Mere filing of capital account with returns was deemed insufficient for true disclosure. Court found appellant's explanation patently false and unsubstantiated as bona fide. Despite Explanation 1 to s147 being inapplicable, Explanation 1 to s271 supported penalty imposition. The minimum prescribed penalty was justified given the deliberate device adopted to evade taxes, and the finality of income addition assessment. Appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.