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...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
481 to 500 of 95955 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Penalty proceedings u/s. 221(1) - default as per Section 220 - the AR of the assessee could not explain fund availability position on the due date of payment of advance tax as well as on the date of self-assessment tax i.e. date of filing of return. We also observe form the order of the authorities below, the assessment was completed u/s. 144 by rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee which clearly shows that the intention of the assessee was not in favour of the revenue for the payment of tax. It clearly shows that the assessee was not paying the taxes within the stipulated time. - Levy of penlty confirmed - AT
Penalty proceedings u/s. 221(1) - default as per Section 220 - the AR of the assessee could not explain fund availability position on the due date of payment of advance tax as well as on the date of self-assessment tax i.e. date of filing of return. We also observe form the order of the authorities below, the assessment was completed u/s. 144 by rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee which clearly shows that the intention of the assessee was not in favour of the revenue for the payment of tax. It clearly shows that the assessee was not paying the taxes within the stipulated time. - Levy of penlty confirmed - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.