Tip: Use multiple words for precise results (e.g. “penalty section 271”)
Tip: Use multiple words for precise results (e.g. “penalty section 271”)
Browse by Pronouncement Date
Filter by Bench
1,155 cases — bench: Panaji
Sorted by date
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of explaining the source of deposits and that the assessee was identifiable by both names (Jain and Jolapure) for whom the notice was issued and in whose name deposits were made. The validity of reassessment proceedings and the additions were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty without proper independent findings and overlooking the material evidence filed by the assessee. For AY 2011-12, it was held that the penalty under Section 271AAA was not applicable as the assessment year did not fall within the 'specified previous year' definition. Consequently, the penalty was set aside.
Showing 1–20 of 1,155 · Page 1 of 58
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings, in some cases, were based solely on assessment orders without independent findings and proper consideration of the assessee's evidence. For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal found that the penalty under section 271AAA was not applicable as the assessment year did not fall within the definition of 'specified previous year'.