Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable where the assessee had disclosed the capital gains, deposited the sale proceeds in the Capital Gains Account Scheme within time, and retained the unutilised amount in that account. The Tribunal held that failure to use the full amount within the stipulated period, caused by disputes with the builder, did not by itself establish concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The assessee had also suo motu informed the AO before reassessment that the exemption period had expired and accepted the taxability of the balance. In the absence of deliberate suppression, the penalty was deleted.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable where the assessee had disclosed the capital gains, deposited the sale proceeds in the Capital Gains Account Scheme within time, and retained the unutilised amount in that account. The Tribunal held that failure to use the full amount within the stipulated period, caused by disputes with the builder, did not by itself establish concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The assessee had also suo motu informed the AO before reassessment that the exemption period had expired and accepted the taxability of the balance. In the absence of deliberate suppression, the penalty was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
