Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
The ITAT held that filing an adjournment application in response to a notice issued under section 142(1) does not constitute non-compliance under section 272A(1)(d). The assessee had replied to the notice seeking additional time, and there was no evidence that this request was rejected by a speaking order from the AO. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty without addressing the fact that the adjournment request was unconsidered. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee made a valid compliance by responding to the notice, negating any willful avoidance. The penalty imposed under section 272A(1)(d) was therefore quashed, and the appeal was allowed.
The ITAT held that filing an adjournment application in response to a notice issued under section 142(1) does not constitute non-compliance under section 272A(1)(d). The assessee had replied to the notice seeking additional time, and there was no evidence that this request was rejected by a speaking order from the AO. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty without addressing the fact that the adjournment request was unconsidered. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee made a valid compliance by responding to the notice, negating any willful avoidance. The penalty imposed under section 272A(1)(d) was therefore quashed, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
