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 allowed the appeal and upheld the deletion of penalty under s.271(1)(c). The Tribunal held that for assessing concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars the return filed under s.153A must be the reference point where additional income is disclosed in that return and accepted by the AO without variation. Since the appellant voluntarily disclosed additional income in the s.153A return and no incriminating/seized material supported that addition, there was no concealment with reference to the s.153A return; consequently the penalty was unwarranted. Earlier conflicting authority was held distinguishable on facts, and the appellate authority's deletion of the penalty was sustained.
ITAT allowed the appeal and upheld the deletion of penalty under s.271(1)(c). The Tribunal held that for assessing concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars the return filed under s.153A must be the reference point where additional income is disclosed in that return and accepted by the AO without variation. Since the appellant voluntarily disclosed additional income in the s.153A return and no incriminating/seized material supported that addition, there was no concealment with reference to the s.153A return; consequently the penalty was unwarranted. Earlier conflicting authority was held distinguishable on facts, and the appellate authority's deletion of the penalty was sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.