Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
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 4821 
Join Channel 
