Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
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.