Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
