Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1561 to 1580 of 96363 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.