Coercive recovery during GST searches is restrained pending scrutiny, preserving normal business operations and requiring adherence to investigation g...
COVID-19 limitation exclusion and destination-specific e-way bills govern revisional timelines and penalties for undocumented third-party plywood deli...
Questions arising from miscellaneous application orders cannot challenge unaltered Tribunal findings, leaving the original order separately challengea...
Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was sustained because the assessee's non-disclosure of capital gains was found to be neither bona fide nor based on a plausible exemption claim. The Court held that the relevant test is whether the omission to disclose taxable income was a genuine mistake or was intended to avoid tax. On the facts, the shares were in an unlisted company, the claimed exemption was not established, the return omitted taxable income while seeking a refund, and the income surfaced only on scrutiny. The conduct was therefore treated as furnishing inaccurate particulars with intent to evade tax, and the appeal was dismissed.
Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was sustained because the assessee's non-disclosure of capital gains was found to be neither bona fide nor based on a plausible exemption claim. The Court held that the relevant test is whether the omission to disclose taxable income was a genuine mistake or was intended to avoid tax. On the facts, the shares were in an unlisted company, the claimed exemption was not established, the return omitted taxable income while seeking a refund, and the income surfaced only on scrutiny. The conduct was therefore treated as furnishing inaccurate particulars with intent to evade tax, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
