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...
ITAT held that the assessee's appeal lacks merit. Despite multiple notices through e-filing portal, the assessee failed to respond or provide explanations for non-compliance. The tribunal affirmed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) based on the assessee's non-disclosure of income discovered during survey proceedings. The ex-parte order was deemed valid, as the right to be heard is not absolute when sufficient opportunities are provided. Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) creates a presumption of concealment in absence of satisfactory explanation. The penalty was correctly levied and confirmed by lower authorities, and the assessee's appeal was consequently dismissed.
ITAT held that the assessee's appeal lacks merit. Despite multiple notices through e-filing portal, the assessee failed to respond or provide explanations for non-compliance. The tribunal affirmed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) based on the assessee's non-disclosure of income discovered during survey proceedings. The ex-parte order was deemed valid, as the right to be heard is not absolute when sufficient opportunities are provided. Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) creates a presumption of concealment in absence of satisfactory explanation. The penalty was correctly levied and confirmed by lower authorities, and the assessee's appeal was consequently dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.