<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Post-detection income surrender does not shield bogus expenditure claims from penalties for misreporting and under-reported income.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=104905</link>
    <description>Post-detection surrender of depreciation and amortisation claims arising from dealings with a non-genuine supplier was treated as non-voluntary where survey findings and adverse material had exposed accommodation entries, the original return claimed the expenditure, and no revised return correctly disclosed income. Failure to prove the supplier&#039;s existence supported misreporting through suppression of facts and false entries; a surrender to buy peace or avoid litigation after detection did not preclude penalty for under-reported income. A challenge that the penalty notice omitted the specific misreporting clause was rejected because it had not been raised before the assessing or appellate authorities or through grounds before the Tribunal. The penalty was sustained and the appeal dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2026 10:16:32 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2026 10:16:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=929536" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Post-detection income surrender does not shield bogus expenditure claims from penalties for misreporting and under-reported income.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=104905</link>
      <description>Post-detection surrender of depreciation and amortisation claims arising from dealings with a non-genuine supplier was treated as non-voluntary where survey findings and adverse material had exposed accommodation entries, the original return claimed the expenditure, and no revised return correctly disclosed income. Failure to prove the supplier&#039;s existence supported misreporting through suppression of facts and false entries; a surrender to buy peace or avoid litigation after detection did not preclude penalty for under-reported income. A challenge that the penalty notice omitted the specific misreporting clause was rejected because it had not been raised before the assessing or appellate authorities or through grounds before the Tribunal. The penalty was sustained and the appeal dismissed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2026 10:16:32 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=104905</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>