Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) against the assessee. The tribunal found the depreciation claim was a clerical error without malafide intention to evade taxes. The error was rectified in subsequent assessment year and did not impact tax liability. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the tribunal concluded that a non-sustainable claim does not automatically constitute furnishing inaccurate income particulars. Consequently, the penalty was deleted, affirming the lower appellate authority's reasoning that the assessee's action did not warrant punitive measures.
ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) against the assessee. The tribunal found the depreciation claim was a clerical error without malafide intention to evade taxes. The error was rectified in subsequent assessment year and did not impact tax liability. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the tribunal concluded that a non-sustainable claim does not automatically constitute furnishing inaccurate income particulars. Consequently, the penalty was deleted, affirming the lower appellate authority's reasoning that the assessee's action did not warrant punitive measures.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
