Penalty under section 271(1)(c) deleted where income was disclosed in section 153A returns and remaining additions were only estimated or computationa...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4561 to 4580 of 96174 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 reopening for AY 2016-17 failed because the Revenue did not allege escapement represented in the form of an asset, so jurisdiction under the search-based block was invalid; the assessment was quashed. It also held that the enhanced tax rate under section 115BBE applied only from 01.04.2017, so it could not be levied for AY 2017-18. Additions for alleged over-invoicing and bogus purchases were deleted because the books and quantitative records were not rejected and the claimed purchases matched the amounts actually billed and paid. CSR expenditure remained disallowable as business expense, but the alternative deduction claim was remanded for fresh examination.
ITAT held that reopening for AY 2016-17 failed because the Revenue did not allege escapement represented in the form of an asset, so jurisdiction under the search-based block was invalid; the assessment was quashed. It also held that the enhanced tax rate under section 115BBE applied only from 01.04.2017, so it could not be levied for AY 2017-18. Additions for alleged over-invoicing and bogus purchases were deleted because the books and quantitative records were not rejected and the claimed purchases matched the amounts actually billed and paid. CSR expenditure remained disallowable as business expense, but the alternative deduction claim was remanded for fresh examination.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
