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 dismissed the appeal of Appellant-Revenue and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of penalty under s.271D, holding that Revenue failed to prove contravention of s.269SS by the Respondent-Assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that s.269SS is predicated on receipt of money in cash and non-cash modes permissible under Rule 6ABBA, and the Assessing Officer did not adduce any direct evidence of cash receipt in the immovable property sale. Reliance on generalized practices and circumstantial inferences without a DVO report or concrete material was held insufficient. Consequently, penalty under s.271D could not be sustained and the appeal was dismissed.
ITAT dismissed the appeal of Appellant-Revenue and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of penalty under s.271D, holding that Revenue failed to prove contravention of s.269SS by the Respondent-Assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that s.269SS is predicated on receipt of money in cash and non-cash modes permissible under Rule 6ABBA, and the Assessing Officer did not adduce any direct evidence of cash receipt in the immovable property sale. Reliance on generalized practices and circumstantial inferences without a DVO report or concrete material was held insufficient. Consequently, penalty under s.271D could not be sustained and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
