Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 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.