Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT adjudicated a tax penalty case concerning undisclosed turnover for AY 2019-20. The tribunal held that penalty u/s 270A cannot be levied when income is estimated and accepted by the Assessing Officer (AO). The tribunal emphasized that for penalty imposition, specific conditions must be strictly followed, and mere declaration of additional income does not automatically constitute misreporting. The AO failed to communicate specific grounds for penalty, violating principles of natural justice. The penalty is discretionary, and the primary onus lies on revenue to prove default. Given the assessee's bona fide disclosure and absence of adverse findings, the tribunal decided against revenue, effectively quashing the proposed penalty.
ITAT adjudicated a tax penalty case concerning undisclosed turnover for AY 2019-20. The tribunal held that penalty u/s 270A cannot be levied when income is estimated and accepted by the Assessing Officer (AO). The tribunal emphasized that for penalty imposition, specific conditions must be strictly followed, and mere declaration of additional income does not automatically constitute misreporting. The AO failed to communicate specific grounds for penalty, violating principles of natural justice. The penalty is discretionary, and the primary onus lies on revenue to prove default. Given the assessee's bona fide disclosure and absence of adverse findings, the tribunal decided against revenue, effectively quashing the proposed penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.