Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Page of 4823
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1101 to 1120 of 96456 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) 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.