Additional evidence in departmental appeals may include show-cause-notice material without introducing a new case where it merely corroborates existin...
Reasoned rectification orders require consideration of expenditure disclosed in income-tax returns, preventing revision based on incomplete income com...
Modified returns after business reorganisations cannot trigger fresh scrutiny once the original assessment was complete, invalidating related transfer...
Third-party loose sheets require reliable nexus before supporting unexplained expenditure additions; presumptions do not establish payer identity or o...
TNMM comparability using audited accounts and working-capital adjustments can eliminate unwarranted transfer-pricing additions where verified margins ...
Gross-profit additions on disputed purchases require reasoned appellate determination; disclosed claims alone do not support inaccurate-particulars pe...
Limitation after transfer-pricing remand: fresh TPO reference did not extend the assessment deadline, rendering the consequential assessment time-barr...
Interim judicial restraint on tax deduction prevents default, while supporting reasonable cause and penalty deletion for foreign-leg LFC reimbursement...
Whether penalty under section 272A(1)(d) could be sustained where statutory notices under section 142(1) were served to an email ID other than the assessee's registered email. Held that statutory service must follow the mode designated by the statute; application of the maxim expression unius est exclusion alterium supports that notices dispatched to the husband's email (unavailable due to his illness) did not constitute valid service on the assessee whose own email was on record. Consequence: deficiency in service vitiates the penalty; penalty set aside and appeal allowed. - ITAT
Whether penalty under section 272A(1)(d) could be sustained where statutory notices under section 142(1) were served to an email ID other than the assessee's registered email. Held that statutory service must follow the mode designated by the statute; application of the maxim expression unius est exclusion alterium supports that notices dispatched to the husband's email (unavailable due to his illness) did not constitute valid service on the assessee whose own email was on record. Consequence: deficiency in service vitiates the penalty; penalty set aside and appeal allowed. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4894 
