Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Customs Assessment Portal centralises classification and valuation guidance to support consistent, transparent and informed compliance across stakehol...
Page of 4918
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 98359 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the penalty imposed under Section 43 of the Black Money Act for failure to disclose foreign assets. Despite the appellant's argument that quantum assessment proceedings differ from penalty proceedings, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that a revised return replaces the original ITR. The ITAT confirmed that when the assessee disclosed foreign assets through a revised return (albeit after search action), this disclosure was sufficient to justify setting aside the penalty for AY 2017-18. The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) should have first addressed whether disclosure in Schedule FA was required, the decision to cancel the penalty was ultimately correct. Appeal decided against revenue.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the penalty imposed under Section 43 of the Black Money Act for failure to disclose foreign assets. Despite the appellant's argument that quantum assessment proceedings differ from penalty proceedings, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that a revised return replaces the original ITR. The ITAT confirmed that when the assessee disclosed foreign assets through a revised return (albeit after search action), this disclosure was sufficient to justify setting aside the penalty for AY 2017-18. The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) should have first addressed whether disclosure in Schedule FA was required, the decision to cancel the penalty was ultimately correct. Appeal decided against revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.