Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1481 to 1500 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" ?
ITAT held that penalty for failure to obtain tax audit was not automatic where the assessee showed reasonable cause under section 271B. The society's initial year of operations, lack of professional guidance and infrastructure, rural background, and bona fide belief that audit under the Co-operative Societies Act was sufficient were accepted, especially as the explanation was neither false nor mala fide. The nil-income assessment and absence of adverse inference of suppression supported the genuineness of the explanation. On these facts, the Tribunal found the penalty unsustainable and deleted it.
ITAT held that penalty for failure to obtain tax audit was not automatic where the assessee showed reasonable cause under section 271B. The society's initial year of operations, lack of professional guidance and infrastructure, rural background, and bona fide belief that audit under the Co-operative Societies Act was sufficient were accepted, especially as the explanation was neither false nor mala fide. The nil-income assessment and absence of adverse inference of suppression supported the genuineness of the explanation. On these facts, the Tribunal found the penalty unsustainable and deleted it.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.