Fraudulent trading requires cogent evidence of intent to defraud; ordinary-course payments protected, except post-insolvency withdrawals must be resto...
Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5681 to 5700 of 96207 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was unsustainable because the dispute concerned only the head of income and the allowability of deduction on disclosed facts, not concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The assessee's claim for full section 54 relief was accepted on the merits, and the joint reinvestment with her son had been disclosed to the department. Relying on Manjunatha Cotton and Reliance Petroproducts, the Tribunal held that a disallowed claim or a claim under a different head does not by itself justify penalty. The penalty was deleted.
The ITAT held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was unsustainable because the dispute concerned only the head of income and the allowability of deduction on disclosed facts, not concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The assessee's claim for full section 54 relief was accepted on the merits, and the joint reinvestment with her son had been disclosed to the department. Relying on Manjunatha Cotton and Reliance Petroproducts, the Tribunal held that a disallowed claim or a claim under a different head does not by itself justify penalty. The penalty was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
