Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
ITAT deleted penalty under section 271(1)(c) imposed on assessee for two fundamental reasons. First, the penalty notice under section 274 was defective as it failed to specify whether the charge pertained to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, rendering the penalty procedurally invalid. Second, the Assessing Officer made additions on ad hoc basis by disallowing ten percent of Magazine and Journal expenses without concrete evidence, treating them as unjustified and excessive. The tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on estimated income additions made without specific evidence of concealment or wilful default. Following established precedent, mere rejection of books and assessment on estimate basis does not establish fraud or gross negligence warranting penalty imposition. Appeal decided in favour of assessee with complete deletion of disputed penalty.
ITAT deleted penalty under section 271(1)(c) imposed on assessee for two fundamental reasons. First, the penalty notice under section 274 was defective as it failed to specify whether the charge pertained to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, rendering the penalty procedurally invalid. Second, the Assessing Officer made additions on ad hoc basis by disallowing ten percent of Magazine and Journal expenses without concrete evidence, treating them as unjustified and excessive. The tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on estimated income additions made without specific evidence of concealment or wilful default. Following established precedent, mere rejection of books and assessment on estimate basis does not establish fraud or gross negligence warranting penalty imposition. Appeal decided in favour of assessee with complete deletion of disputed penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
