Abuse of dominant position allegations against an exchange found not prima facie; regulator reliance on sectoral expertise upheld and no investigation...
Regulatory consolidation for investment advisers: SEBI issues master circular consolidating guidance and prescribing compliance, reporting, fees and s...
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 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
