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 penalty proceedings under s.271(1)(c) read with s.274 were vitiated where the AO's notice failed to specify which limb of s.271(1)(c) (concealment of particulars or furnishing of inaccurate particulars/under-reporting or misreporting) was invoked and did not strike out the irrelevant portion of the charge. Applying the controlling full-bench ratio, the Tribunal concluded that procedural infirmity deprived the assessee of fair notice; accordingly the penalty orders framed by the AO under s.271(1)(c) were held invalid and were quashed, with the appeal allowed in favour of the assessee.
The ITAT held that penalty proceedings under s.271(1)(c) read with s.274 were vitiated where the AO's notice failed to specify which limb of s.271(1)(c) (concealment of particulars or furnishing of inaccurate particulars/under-reporting or misreporting) was invoked and did not strike out the irrelevant portion of the charge. Applying the controlling full-bench ratio, the Tribunal concluded that procedural infirmity deprived the assessee of fair notice; accordingly the penalty orders framed by the AO under s.271(1)(c) were held invalid and were quashed, with the appeal allowed in favour of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.