Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
ITAT ruled against penalty under s.270A for under-reporting income. Taxpayer met substantive conditions for immunity under s.270AA(1) by paying assessed tax and interest within prescribed time after declaring Rs.30 lakhs under PMGKY scheme. While Form 68 wasn't filed with AO, ITAT held this procedural omission shouldn't override substantive compliance. Citing principle that technical procedures shouldn't impede substantial justice, tribunal found non-filing of Form 68 was merely technical breach. Since taxpayer satisfied core requirements of s.270AA(1)(a)&(b), immunity from penalty was granted despite procedural lapse. Appeal decided in taxpayer's favor, setting aside penalty under s.270A.
ITAT ruled against penalty under s.270A for under-reporting income. Taxpayer met substantive conditions for immunity under s.270AA(1) by paying assessed tax and interest within prescribed time after declaring Rs.30 lakhs under PMGKY scheme. While Form 68 wasn't filed with AO, ITAT held this procedural omission shouldn't override substantive compliance. Citing principle that technical procedures shouldn't impede substantial justice, tribunal found non-filing of Form 68 was merely technical breach. Since taxpayer satisfied core requirements of s.270AA(1)(a)&(b), immunity from penalty was granted despite procedural lapse. Appeal decided in taxpayer's favor, setting aside penalty under s.270A.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.