Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1521 to 1540 of 96333 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 4817 
Join Channel 
