Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
ITAT reversed CIT(A)'s deletion of penalty under s271AAB imposed during search and seizure proceedings. The company director had declared undisclosed income, but CIT(A) deleted penalty citing vague show cause notices. ITAT found AO had clearly specified penalty charges under s271AAB(1A) in both assessment and penalty orders, properly notifying assessee of proceedings and undisclosed amount. Computer-generated notice limitations were acknowledged. Following precedents from Allahabad HC and ITAT Pune, tribunal held CIT(A)'s order unsustainable, reinstating penalty. Revenue's appeal allowed, emphasizing sufficient specification of charges despite standardized notice format.
ITAT reversed CIT(A)'s deletion of penalty under s271AAB imposed during search and seizure proceedings. The company director had declared undisclosed income, but CIT(A) deleted penalty citing vague show cause notices. ITAT found AO had clearly specified penalty charges under s271AAB(1A) in both assessment and penalty orders, properly notifying assessee of proceedings and undisclosed amount. Computer-generated notice limitations were acknowledged. Following precedents from Allahabad HC and ITAT Pune, tribunal held CIT(A)'s order unsustainable, reinstating penalty. Revenue's appeal allowed, emphasizing sufficient specification of charges despite standardized notice format.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
