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...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Penalty for concealment could not be sustained where short-term capital gains arising from a development agreement were omitted because the year of taxability was then debatable. The Tribunal noted that confirmation of the quantum addition did not, by itself, establish concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. On the legal position prevailing when the return was filed, taxability could depend on execution of the agreement, performance by the developer, or completion and handing over of the constructed property. The penalty was therefore held to have been levied without proper appreciation of the legal uncertainty and was deleted.
Penalty for concealment could not be sustained where short-term capital gains arising from a development agreement were omitted because the year of taxability was then debatable. The Tribunal noted that confirmation of the quantum addition did not, by itself, establish concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. On the legal position prevailing when the return was filed, taxability could depend on execution of the agreement, performance by the developer, or completion and handing over of the constructed property. The penalty was therefore held to have been levied without proper appreciation of the legal uncertainty and was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.