Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - after learning about the serious irregularities in the activities of the aforesaid institute, acted in a bonafide manner, and in his return filed in compliance to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, had withdrawn the claim of deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) that was earlier raised by him in the ‘Original’ return of income - there is nothing discernible from record which would conclusively prove to the hilt that the assessee had raised a false claim of deduction. - No penalty.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - after learning about the serious irregularities in the activities of the aforesaid institute, acted in a bonafide manner, and in his return filed in compliance to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, had withdrawn the claim of deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) that was earlier raised by him in the ‘Original’ return of income - there is nothing discernible from record which would conclusively prove to the hilt that the assessee had raised a false claim of deduction. - No penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
