Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Page of 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1501 to 1520 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) turns on the assessee's intention: an inadvertent or unintentional omission does not attract penalty, but a conscious non-disclosure or false exemption claim constitutes concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars. On the facts, the assessee had paid advance tax on the capital gains yet claimed exemption in the return and sought a refund, which the Court treated as a deliberate attempt to avoid tax discovered on scrutiny. The explanation of a typographical error in the Chartered Accountant's computation was rejected, and the cited advance ruling was held inapplicable on its different facts. The Tribunal's restoration of penalty was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) turns on the assessee's intention: an inadvertent or unintentional omission does not attract penalty, but a conscious non-disclosure or false exemption claim constitutes concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars. On the facts, the assessee had paid advance tax on the capital gains yet claimed exemption in the return and sought a refund, which the Court treated as a deliberate attempt to avoid tax discovered on scrutiny. The explanation of a typographical error in the Chartered Accountant's computation was rejected, and the cited advance ruling was held inapplicable on its different facts. The Tribunal's restoration of penalty was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.