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...
ITAT upheld that the assessee failed to comply with successive...
Assessee penalized for persistent non-compliance with s.142(1); penalty under s.271(1)(b) reduced to Rs.10,000 on procedural ground while non-compliance facts upheld
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
ITAT upheld that the assessee failed to comply with successive notices issued under s.142(1) and offered no reasonable explanation; non-compliance persisted during penalty proceedings and before the Ld. CIT(A). However, ITAT found the AO erred in levying a composite penalty of Rs.20,000 under s.271(1)(b), observing that under s.271(1)(b) each distinct failure attracts a separate penalty and separate notice is requisite for multiple failures. Consequentially, ITAT reduced the penalty to Rs.10,000 and partly allowed the appeal, leaving the factual finding of non-compliance intact but modifying the quantum of penalty on procedural grounds.
ITAT upheld that the assessee failed to comply with successive notices issued under s.142(1) and offered no reasonable explanation; non-compliance persisted during penalty proceedings and before the Ld. CIT(A). However, ITAT found the AO erred in levying a composite penalty of Rs.20,000 under s.271(1)(b), observing that under s.271(1)(b) each distinct failure attracts a separate penalty and separate notice is requisite for multiple failures. Consequentially, ITAT reduced the penalty to Rs.10,000 and partly allowed the appeal, leaving the factual finding of non-compliance intact but modifying the quantum of penalty on procedural grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.