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 set aside penalty under s.272A(1)(d) imposed on appellant, a small fruit vendor, for alleged non-compliance with notices under s.142(1)/143(2) during demonetization-related scrutiny. While CIT(A) upheld AO's addition in quantum proceedings, ITAT noted appellant's limited legal awareness and inability to afford proper representation. Tribunal distinguished between total non-compliance versus insufficient compliance, observing appellant had attempted to cooperate by submitting bank statements. Finding revenue cannot exploit assessee's vulnerable position, ITAT directed deletion of penalty, acknowledging disproportionate financial burden on small vendor and partial compliance efforts made. Appeal allowed in favor of assessee.
ITAT set aside penalty under s.272A(1)(d) imposed on appellant, a small fruit vendor, for alleged non-compliance with notices under s.142(1)/143(2) during demonetization-related scrutiny. While CIT(A) upheld AO's addition in quantum proceedings, ITAT noted appellant's limited legal awareness and inability to afford proper representation. Tribunal distinguished between total non-compliance versus insufficient compliance, observing appellant had attempted to cooperate by submitting bank statements. Finding revenue cannot exploit assessee's vulnerable position, ITAT directed deletion of penalty, acknowledging disproportionate financial burden on small vendor and partial compliance efforts made. Appeal allowed in favor of assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.