Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1561 to 1580 of 96363 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - the proposition suggesting to read the mandate of copyright royalty cases in the context of industrial royalty cases is grossly misconceived. - The mere fact that an assessee has not challenged the addition does not per se lead to imposition or confirmation of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act thereon. The relevant facts and circumstances of the case need to be viewed independently for the purpose of penalty, which is distinct proceeding. Amongst others, it is a well settled proposition that penalty cannot be imposed on a debatable issue. - AT
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - the proposition suggesting to read the mandate of copyright royalty cases in the context of industrial royalty cases is grossly misconceived. - The mere fact that an assessee has not challenged the addition does not per se lead to imposition or confirmation of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act thereon. The relevant facts and circumstances of the case need to be viewed independently for the purpose of penalty, which is distinct proceeding. Amongst others, it is a well settled proposition that penalty cannot be imposed on a debatable issue. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
