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) - When the matter travelled to the Tribunal, the explanation which was given by the assessee and accepted by the CIT(A) was once again examined by the Tribunal and after noting several decisions as to under what circumstances penalty can be imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act as also the fact that there was nothing on record to show that the assessee had purposely made a wrong claim, confirmed the order passed by the CIT(A). - No penalty - HC
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - When the matter travelled to the Tribunal, the explanation which was given by the assessee and accepted by the CIT(A) was once again examined by the Tribunal and after noting several decisions as to under what circumstances penalty can be imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act as also the fact that there was nothing on record to show that the assessee had purposely made a wrong claim, confirmed the order passed by the CIT(A). - No penalty - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
