Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Levy of penalty - onus to prove - false representation - The allegation that the commodities electrical goods, Restolene paste and Chemicals are not "industrial stores" is not found to have been proven. The issue is not to be decided on a common sense perspective of the matter. Once the charge had been levelled, it became the burden of the revenue to prove it. If some evidence had been led whether documentary or oral, the onus may have shifted on the assessee to lead evidence in rebuttal. That was not done - the merit of the explanation furnished by the assessee cannot be relied by the revenue to sustain the penalty. - HC
Levy of penalty - onus to prove - false representation - The allegation that the commodities electrical goods, Restolene paste and Chemicals are not "industrial stores" is not found to have been proven. The issue is not to be decided on a common sense perspective of the matter. Once the charge had been levelled, it became the burden of the revenue to prove it. If some evidence had been led whether documentary or oral, the onus may have shifted on the assessee to lead evidence in rebuttal. That was not done - the merit of the explanation furnished by the assessee cannot be relied by the revenue to sustain the penalty. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.