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" ?
Section 43 penalty under the Black Money Act was held unsustainable where the foreign investment was disclosed in the audited balance sheet and in Part A-BS of the return, even though Schedule FA was left blank. The Tribunal held that the statutory trigger is failure to furnish information in the return of income, and that this requirement was met because the return was not silent on the foreign asset. A CBDT circular or FAQ could not widen the penalty provision. In the absence of any allegation that the investment was unexplained, unaccounted, or sourced from undisclosed foreign income, the omission was treated as a technical reporting lapse. The CIT(A)'s deletion of penalty was affirmed.
Section 43 penalty under the Black Money Act was held unsustainable where the foreign investment was disclosed in the audited balance sheet and in Part A-BS of the return, even though Schedule FA was left blank. The Tribunal held that the statutory trigger is failure to furnish information in the return of income, and that this requirement was met because the return was not silent on the foreign asset. A CBDT circular or FAQ could not widen the penalty provision. In the absence of any allegation that the investment was unexplained, unaccounted, or sourced from undisclosed foreign income, the omission was treated as a technical reporting lapse. The CIT(A)'s deletion of penalty was affirmed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.