Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
ITAT reversed the CIT(A) and AO's determination that appellant was an assessee-in-default under s.201(1) for failure to deduct TDS under s.194IA. The Tribunal held that since payments to individual sellers (21,83,680 and 31,83,680) were each below the 50,00,000 threshold, s.194IA provisions were not applicable, following Bhikhabhai H. Patel. The CIT(A) failed to address the legal issues raised by appellant or examine the transaction structure in light of judicial precedent. Consequently, the demand under s.201(1) and interest under s.201(1A) were deleted, rendering moot the remaining grounds concerning s.2(14)(iii), proviso to s.201(1), Explanation to s.191, and penalty under s.271C.
ITAT reversed the CIT(A) and AO's determination that appellant was an assessee-in-default under s.201(1) for failure to deduct TDS under s.194IA. The Tribunal held that since payments to individual sellers (21,83,680 and 31,83,680) were each below the 50,00,000 threshold, s.194IA provisions were not applicable, following Bhikhabhai H. Patel. The CIT(A) failed to address the legal issues raised by appellant or examine the transaction structure in light of judicial precedent. Consequently, the demand under s.201(1) and interest under s.201(1A) were deleted, rendering moot the remaining grounds concerning s.2(14)(iii), proviso to s.201(1), Explanation to s.191, and penalty under s.271C.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
