Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
Penalty under the tax provision for furnishing inaccurate particulars was contested where the assessee claimed interest under capitalisation rather than revenue deduction. Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court principle that an incorrect claim does not automatically constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars, and observed the assessing officers disallowance on capitalisation had attained finality. Subsequent treatment by the assesseecapitalising interest in a later yearfurther supported absence of deliberate inaccuracy. Consequently the appellate authority concluded the penalty was unsustainable and allowed the assessees grounds, setting aside the confirmed levy of penalty.
Penalty under the tax provision for furnishing inaccurate particulars was contested where the assessee claimed interest under capitalisation rather than revenue deduction. Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court principle that an incorrect claim does not automatically constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars, and observed the assessing officers disallowance on capitalisation had attained finality. Subsequent treatment by the assesseecapitalising interest in a later yearfurther supported absence of deliberate inaccuracy. Consequently the appellate authority concluded the penalty was unsustainable and allowed the assessees grounds, setting aside the confirmed levy of penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.