Additional evidence in departmental appeals may include show-cause-notice material without introducing a new case where it merely corroborates existin...
Reasoned rectification orders require consideration of expenditure disclosed in income-tax returns, preventing revision based on incomplete income com...
Modified returns after business reorganisations cannot trigger fresh scrutiny once the original assessment was complete, invalidating related transfer...
Third-party loose sheets require reliable nexus before supporting unexplained expenditure additions; presumptions do not establish payer identity or o...
TNMM comparability using audited accounts and working-capital adjustments can eliminate unwarranted transfer-pricing additions where verified margins ...
Gross-profit additions on disputed purchases require reasoned appellate determination; disclosed claims alone do not support inaccurate-particulars pe...
Limitation after transfer-pricing remand: fresh TPO reference did not extend the assessment deadline, rendering the consequential assessment time-barr...
Interim judicial restraint on tax deduction prevents default, while supporting reasonable cause and penalty deletion for foreign-leg LFC reimbursement...
Levy of penalty u/s 9-B (3) of the OST Act - The fact of the matter is that as far as the installed capacity was concerned, with the exemption on payment of sales tax on the finished product having come to end on 1st December 1993, the Petitioner was bound to collect the sales tax on the finished product which in fact it did. It was this tax that the Petitioner deposited with the Department - the explanation offered by the Petitioner that it was bound to collect the sales tax for this period is both logical and correct. If that is the position, then there is no justification in imposing any penalty on the Petitioner for these two years on the ground that it had illegally collected sales tax. - HC
Levy of penalty u/s 9-B (3) of the OST Act - The fact of the matter is that as far as the installed capacity was concerned, with the exemption on payment of sales tax on the finished product having come to end on 1st December 1993, the Petitioner was bound to collect the sales tax on the finished product which in fact it did. It was this tax that the Petitioner deposited with the Department - the explanation offered by the Petitioner that it was bound to collect the sales tax for this period is both logical and correct. If that is the position, then there is no justification in imposing any penalty on the Petitioner for these two years on the ground that it had illegally collected sales tax. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4894 
