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...
Levy of penalty u/s 54(1)(2) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 - men-rea - The Court concluded that mens rea is indeed an essential prerequisite for imposing a penalty under this provision. - The Court held that penalties could not be imposed on the basis of a best judgement assessment. Such assessments are essentially grounded on reasonable guesses or estimates and do not inherently prove any willful attempt to evade taxes. Without explicit evidence of a deliberate action to avoid tax payments, the imposition of penalties is unjustified.
Levy of penalty u/s 54(1)(2) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 - men-rea - The Court concluded that mens rea is indeed an essential prerequisite for imposing a penalty under this provision. - The Court held that penalties could not be imposed on the basis of a best judgement assessment. Such assessments are essentially grounded on reasonable guesses or estimates and do not inherently prove any willful attempt to evade taxes. Without explicit evidence of a deliberate action to avoid tax payments, the imposition of penalties is unjustified.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
