Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Page of 4894
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
241 to 260 of 97862 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the levy of penalty under s.271(1)(c) insofar as it relates to additions confirmed by the Tribunal; the assessee failed to demonstrate any error in the quantum of additions as upheld by CIT(A) and ITAT. The rectification under s.154 by DCIT, which granted carry-forward of past losses inadvertently omitted, did not constitute a computational mistake affecting the confirmed additions and therefore does not mitigate penalty exposure. Because no infirmity was shown in the appellate order, no recalibration of the penalty relative to the s.154 reduction was warranted and the impugned assessment and penalty stand affirmed.
The ITAT dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the levy of penalty under s.271(1)(c) insofar as it relates to additions confirmed by the Tribunal; the assessee failed to demonstrate any error in the quantum of additions as upheld by CIT(A) and ITAT. The rectification under s.154 by DCIT, which granted carry-forward of past losses inadvertently omitted, did not constitute a computational mistake affecting the confirmed additions and therefore does not mitigate penalty exposure. Because no infirmity was shown in the appellate order, no recalibration of the penalty relative to the s.154 reduction was warranted and the impugned assessment and penalty stand affirmed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4894 
