Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal and set aside the penalty under s.271D imposed for alleged default under s.269SS. The Tribunal found on the facts that the assessee was not the landowner when advances were received, had filed agreements with the AO evidencing proposed purchases, and the transactions ultimately did not materialize; the amounts were refunded to prospective buyers by allotment of shares on 31.03.2011 after the vendor failed to perform. Applying the amended scope of s.269SS and following relevant authorities, the Tribunal held s.269SS inapplicable and consequently cancelled the penalty confirmed by the CIT(A), allowing the assessee's appeal.
The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal and set aside the penalty under s.271D imposed for alleged default under s.269SS. The Tribunal found on the facts that the assessee was not the landowner when advances were received, had filed agreements with the AO evidencing proposed purchases, and the transactions ultimately did not materialize; the amounts were refunded to prospective buyers by allotment of shares on 31.03.2011 after the vendor failed to perform. Applying the amended scope of s.269SS and following relevant authorities, the Tribunal held s.269SS inapplicable and consequently cancelled the penalty confirmed by the CIT(A), allowing the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
