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...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1541 to 1560 of 96406 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The text examines imposition of penalty under s.271(1)(c) for bogus purchases and states the controlling legal point that an Assessing Officer must form a clear subjective satisfaction that the assessee consciously concealed particulars of income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars before levying penalty; mere ad hoc estimation of profit in bogus purchases does not suffice. The appellate authority reduced the added profit percentages, and the article concludes that where the AO restricted profit element by estimation without a finding of deliberate concealment or inaccurate particulars, penalty could not be sustained, resulting in a decision favorable to the assessee.
The text examines imposition of penalty under s.271(1)(c) for bogus purchases and states the controlling legal point that an Assessing Officer must form a clear subjective satisfaction that the assessee consciously concealed particulars of income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars before levying penalty; mere ad hoc estimation of profit in bogus purchases does not suffice. The appellate authority reduced the added profit percentages, and the article concludes that where the AO restricted profit element by estimation without a finding of deliberate concealment or inaccurate particulars, penalty could not be sustained, resulting in a decision favorable to the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.