Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
The HC dismissed the challenge, holding that the assessee had disclosed acquisition of the foreign asset in the original returns for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 and in the return filed under s.153A prior to issuance of any penalty notice; books of account corroborated the disclosure. Applying the principle that a return filed under s.153A qualifies as a return for purposes of s.139(1), the tribunal and commissioner correctly concluded there was no failure to disclose and that imposition of the Rs.10 lakh penalty was not warranted on account of a remediable technical formatting defect. No substantial question of law arises.
The HC dismissed the challenge, holding that the assessee had disclosed acquisition of the foreign asset in the original returns for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 and in the return filed under s.153A prior to issuance of any penalty notice; books of account corroborated the disclosure. Applying the principle that a return filed under s.153A qualifies as a return for purposes of s.139(1), the tribunal and commissioner correctly concluded there was no failure to disclose and that imposition of the Rs.10 lakh penalty was not warranted on account of a remediable technical formatting defect. No substantial question of law arises.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
