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...
The ITAT upheld the penalty under section 271(1)(c) imposed on the assessee for concealing/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by claiming depreciation on inflated and bogus asset purchases. The tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that no penalty should apply to the disallowance related to inflated asset costs, despite a favorable quantum decision in a separate case, finding no merit in this argument. Regarding depreciation on bogus assets, the tribunal noted the assessee's acceptance of the CIT(A) order and affirmed the findings that the purchased assets were from non-genuine parties, corroborated by departmental investigations and admissions from associated group officials. The tribunal distinguished the present facts from the cited case relied upon by the assessee, concluding no relief was warranted. Consequently, the ITAT confirmed the levy of penalty on disallowed depreciation pertaining to both inflated and bogus asset purchases.
The ITAT upheld the penalty under section 271(1)(c) imposed on the assessee for concealing/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by claiming depreciation on inflated and bogus asset purchases. The tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that no penalty should apply to the disallowance related to inflated asset costs, despite a favorable quantum decision in a separate case, finding no merit in this argument. Regarding depreciation on bogus assets, the tribunal noted the assessee's acceptance of the CIT(A) order and affirmed the findings that the purchased assets were from non-genuine parties, corroborated by departmental investigations and admissions from associated group officials. The tribunal distinguished the present facts from the cited case relied upon by the assessee, concluding no relief was warranted. Consequently, the ITAT confirmed the levy of penalty on disallowed depreciation pertaining to both inflated and bogus asset purchases.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
