Alternative statutory remedy under GST bars writ challenge where classification, notice variance, and hearing disputes require factual appellate revie...
Duplicate PAN cancellation timeframe requires prior administrative representation before judicial intervention, ensuring a time-bound decision on the ...
Natural justice and pre-CIRP labour awards protect termination compensation, permitting withdrawal of court deposits despite later insolvency resoluti...
Arbitration of SEZ sub-lease monetary claims preserves rent, maintenance, termination, improvements and damages disputes while unused premises are vac...
Scientific research approval grants a research association tax recognition, subject to annual donor reporting, certification, and regulatory complianc...
Page of 4891
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 97820 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 4891 
