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 held that the term "may" in Section 43 of the BM Act is directory and not to be construed as "shall," therefore imposition of penalty for non-disclosure of foreign assets in Schedule FA is not automatic; the Assessing Officer retains discretion to impose or waive penalty based on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Tribunal found the appellants failed to demonstrate a bona fide omission and noted material inaccuracies and non-reporting, but clarified that a prior decision did not bind the Division Bench on whether penalty is mandatory nor considered Section 46's requirement of hearing. The matters are remitted to the Division Bench to determine the penalty merits in accordance with law.
ITAT held that the term "may" in Section 43 of the BM Act is directory and not to be construed as "shall," therefore imposition of penalty for non-disclosure of foreign assets in Schedule FA is not automatic; the Assessing Officer retains discretion to impose or waive penalty based on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Tribunal found the appellants failed to demonstrate a bona fide omission and noted material inaccuracies and non-reporting, but clarified that a prior decision did not bind the Division Bench on whether penalty is mandatory nor considered Section 46's requirement of hearing. The matters are remitted to the Division Bench to determine the penalty merits in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
