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...
ITAT affirmed deletion of penalty under s.271(1)(c), holding that acceptance of a s.35D deduction in an initial year, as upheld by SC precedent, precludes denial in subsequent years and that an unsustainable tax position does not ipso facto constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal applied the principle that penal liability under s.271(1)(c) requires factual proof of incorrect, erroneous or false particulars in the return, not merely an arguable or unsuccessful claim of deduction. On this basis the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was upheld and the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
ITAT affirmed deletion of penalty under s.271(1)(c), holding that acceptance of a s.35D deduction in an initial year, as upheld by SC precedent, precludes denial in subsequent years and that an unsustainable tax position does not ipso facto constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal applied the principle that penal liability under s.271(1)(c) requires factual proof of incorrect, erroneous or false particulars in the return, not merely an arguable or unsuccessful claim of deduction. On this basis the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was upheld and the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
