Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
ITAT affirmed the quantum disallowance of unpaid leave encashment under the governing statutory framework, but allowed the appeal against imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal held the deduction claim was governed by section 43B(f) and upheld the CIT(A)'s disallowance in the quantum proceedings; however, it found no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars warranting penalty, noting the assessee had disclosed the amount in audited accounts, relied on prevailing judicial views then favorable to the assessee, and acted bona fide while litigation was pending before the SC. The ITAT set aside the impugned appellate order and directed the AO to delete the penalty.
ITAT affirmed the quantum disallowance of unpaid leave encashment under the governing statutory framework, but allowed the appeal against imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal held the deduction claim was governed by section 43B(f) and upheld the CIT(A)'s disallowance in the quantum proceedings; however, it found no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars warranting penalty, noting the assessee had disclosed the amount in audited accounts, relied on prevailing judicial views then favorable to the assessee, and acted bona fide while litigation was pending before the SC. The ITAT set aside the impugned appellate order and directed the AO to delete the penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
