Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95715 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 of the assessee and deleted the penalty imposed u/s 270A(9) of the Act. ITAT held that the income from surrender/redemption of the Bajaj Equity Plus Fund had been duly disclosed in the return, though under the incorrect head "Capital Gains" instead of "Income from Other Sources." As there was no misrepresentation, suppression of facts, or failure to report income, the case did not fall within any of the clauses (a) to (f) of s. 270A(9), which govern "under-reporting" and "misreporting" of income. Relying on its earlier view that mere change of head of income does not attract penalty, ITAT cancelled the penalty and decided in favour of the assessee.
ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the penalty imposed u/s 270A(9) of the Act. ITAT held that the income from surrender/redemption of the Bajaj Equity Plus Fund had been duly disclosed in the return, though under the incorrect head "Capital Gains" instead of "Income from Other Sources." As there was no misrepresentation, suppression of facts, or failure to report income, the case did not fall within any of the clauses (a) to (f) of s. 270A(9), which govern "under-reporting" and "misreporting" of income. Relying on its earlier view that mere change of head of income does not attract penalty, ITAT cancelled the penalty and decided in favour of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.