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...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
