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...
The ITAT held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was unsustainable where the assessee voluntarily disclosed additional income in returns filed under section 148 during assessment proceedings. The Tribunal observed absence of incriminating evidence or suppression, acceptance of revised returns by the AO without adverse inference, and reliance on precedents affirming that mere surrender of income or disallowance without concealment does not attract penalty. Furthermore, the AO failed to record satisfaction under either limb of section 271(1)(c), rendering the penalty proceedings invalid. Consequently, the penalty imposed for all five assessment years was quashed and the assessee's appeal allowed.
The ITAT held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was unsustainable where the assessee voluntarily disclosed additional income in returns filed under section 148 during assessment proceedings. The Tribunal observed absence of incriminating evidence or suppression, acceptance of revised returns by the AO without adverse inference, and reliance on precedents affirming that mere surrender of income or disallowance without concealment does not attract penalty. Furthermore, the AO failed to record satisfaction under either limb of section 271(1)(c), rendering the penalty proceedings invalid. Consequently, the penalty imposed for all five assessment years was quashed and the assessee's appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.