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 not leviable as the assessee rectified the inadvertent erroneous claim of deduction under section 54F by filing a revised computation during assessment proceedings, demonstrating bona fide intent. The tribunal distinguished between concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars, noting the AO initiated penalty proceedings for concealment but levied penalty for inaccurate particulars without proper satisfaction or notice under that limb. This procedural inconsistency rendered the penalty unsustainable. Consequently, the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was deleted, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
The ITAT held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was not leviable as the assessee rectified the inadvertent erroneous claim of deduction under section 54F by filing a revised computation during assessment proceedings, demonstrating bona fide intent. The tribunal distinguished between concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars, noting the AO initiated penalty proceedings for concealment but levied penalty for inaccurate particulars without proper satisfaction or notice under that limb. This procedural inconsistency rendered the penalty unsustainable. Consequently, the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was deleted, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.