Penalty for estimation of income and disallowances for tax non-deduction clarified: estimation-based penalties not sustainable; additions without conc...
Managerial remuneration disallowance under s.40A(2)(b) challenged over alleged tax-avoidance; appellate decision restored deletion of addition for dir...
Classification of imported goods as electronic cigarette versus tobacco product reversed for lack of proof; order set aside for jurisdictional overrea...
The BMA was held to operate prospectively from A.Y. 2016-17, with the proviso to section 3(1) allowing only limited retrospective valuation of an undisclosed asset when it first comes to the AO's notice. An explained inherited corpus and voluntarily disclosed historic interest were not "undisclosed assets" under sections 2(11) and 4(1), so the BMA could not be used to tax them; any pre-2016 income had to be dealt with under the IT Act. The notice under section 10(1) was also jurisdictionally defective because it omitted the relevant year and was issued belatedly. A.Y. 2019-20 was not the correct year of chargeability; at most, the proviso could point to A.Y. 2017-18.
The BMA was held to operate prospectively from A.Y. 2016-17, with the proviso to section 3(1) allowing only limited retrospective valuation of an undisclosed asset when it first comes to the AO's notice. An explained inherited corpus and voluntarily disclosed historic interest were not "undisclosed assets" under sections 2(11) and 4(1), so the BMA could not be used to tax them; any pre-2016 income had to be dealt with under the IT Act. The notice under section 10(1) was also jurisdictionally defective because it omitted the relevant year and was issued belatedly. A.Y. 2019-20 was not the correct year of chargeability; at most, the proviso could point to A.Y. 2017-18.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
