Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 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" ?
Penalty under section 271AAB remained leviable on undisclosed cash found during search because the disclosure was made only after seizure and admission under section 132(4), so the assessee could not escape penalty merely because the returned income later matched the finally assessed income after quantum relief. The Tribunal held that clause (a) was inapplicable because the assessee did not specify or substantiate the manner of deriving the income, clause (b) was inapplicable because the income had in fact been admitted, and the case therefore fell under clause (c). As no extraordinary circumstances justified the maximum rate, the penalty under clause (c) was restricted to 30% of the undisclosed income.
Penalty under section 271AAB remained leviable on undisclosed cash found during search because the disclosure was made only after seizure and admission under section 132(4), so the assessee could not escape penalty merely because the returned income later matched the finally assessed income after quantum relief. The Tribunal held that clause (a) was inapplicable because the assessee did not specify or substantiate the manner of deriving the income, clause (b) was inapplicable because the income had in fact been admitted, and the case therefore fell under clause (c). As no extraordinary circumstances justified the maximum rate, the penalty under clause (c) was restricted to 30% of the undisclosed income.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.