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...
ITAT upheld the assessee's appeal, finding no justifiable basis to reclassify share application money as loans/deposits under Section 269SS. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's precedent, which clarified that share application money does not fall under loan or deposit provisions. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271D was not leviable. The decision affirmed the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty, emphasizing strict interpretation of taxing statutes and procedural requirements in penalty proceedings.
ITAT upheld the assessee's appeal, finding no justifiable basis to reclassify share application money as loans/deposits under Section 269SS. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's precedent, which clarified that share application money does not fall under loan or deposit provisions. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271D was not leviable. The decision affirmed the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty, emphasizing strict interpretation of taxing statutes and procedural requirements in penalty proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
