Cross-border payments for marketing and support services: tribunal limits unsubstantiated reimbursed expenses and remits provision accounting for veri...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6901 to 6920 of 96510 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 4826 
Join Channel 
