Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9201 to 9220 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT allowed the appeal and deleted the penalty levied under s. 270A(9) against the assessee, holding that the impugned disallowance related solely to an erroneous calculation of deduction under s. 54F rather than misrepresentation or suppression of facts. The Tribunal found that the assessee had disclosed the capital gains and the investment facts, and neither the AO nor the CIT(A) identified any specific instance within sub-s. (9) of s. 270A that was satisfied. Consequently, the penalty for mis-reporting was unsustainable as a matter of law and was set aside, with the appeal of the assessee being allowed.
ITAT allowed the appeal and deleted the penalty levied under s. 270A(9) against the assessee, holding that the impugned disallowance related solely to an erroneous calculation of deduction under s. 54F rather than misrepresentation or suppression of facts. The Tribunal found that the assessee had disclosed the capital gains and the investment facts, and neither the AO nor the CIT(A) identified any specific instance within sub-s. (9) of s. 270A that was satisfied. Consequently, the penalty for mis-reporting was unsustainable as a matter of law and was set aside, with the appeal of the assessee being allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
