Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
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 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
