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 held that the revised return operated as a substitution for the original return and, as the AO assessed income identical to the revised return and accepted the assessee's explanations, there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars; accordingly penalty under s.271(1)(c) could not be levied. The tribunal reversed the penalty order, finding that once tax was recovered on the revised return and no material demonstrated falsehood or suppression in the particulars furnished, the statutory requirement for imposing penalty was not satisfied. Appeal allowed and penalty set aside.
ITAT held that the revised return operated as a substitution for the original return and, as the AO assessed income identical to the revised return and accepted the assessee's explanations, there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars; accordingly penalty under s.271(1)(c) could not be levied. The tribunal reversed the penalty order, finding that once tax was recovered on the revised return and no material demonstrated falsehood or suppression in the particulars furnished, the statutory requirement for imposing penalty was not satisfied. Appeal allowed and penalty set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
