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 allowed the assessee's appeal and deleted penalty under section 271AAA. The AO imposed penalty alleging the assessee failed to substantiate the manner of deriving undisclosed income surrendered during search proceedings. The assessee contended that the Authorized Officer never specifically asked to specify the derivation manner during search. ITAT found that no specific question was put to the assessee regarding the mode and manner of earning undisclosed income during the recorded statement. Following precedent from a group case with similar facts where ITAT Chandigarh Bench confirmed CIT(A)'s deletion of section 271AAA penalty for identical reasons, the tribunal deleted the penalty. The decision established that without specific questioning during search about income derivation methods, penalty under section 271AAA cannot be sustained.
ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal and deleted penalty under section 271AAA. The AO imposed penalty alleging the assessee failed to substantiate the manner of deriving undisclosed income surrendered during search proceedings. The assessee contended that the Authorized Officer never specifically asked to specify the derivation manner during search. ITAT found that no specific question was put to the assessee regarding the mode and manner of earning undisclosed income during the recorded statement. Following precedent from a group case with similar facts where ITAT Chandigarh Bench confirmed CIT(A)'s deletion of section 271AAA penalty for identical reasons, the tribunal deleted the penalty. The decision established that without specific questioning during search about income derivation methods, penalty under section 271AAA cannot be sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.