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...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
241 to 260 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.