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" ?
Penalty proceedings u/s 270A - Applicable rate of penalty - The Appellate Tribunal noted that while the penalty notice cited under-reporting of income, the AO imposed the penalty under the provision related to misreporting of income. The Tribunal found that the AO's action of invoking the higher penalty rate for misreporting was not justified. It was established that the penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income carried different rates under Section 270A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty should have been restricted to the rate applicable for under-reporting of income, which is 50%.
Penalty proceedings u/s 270A - Applicable rate of penalty - The Appellate Tribunal noted that while the penalty notice cited under-reporting of income, the AO imposed the penalty under the provision related to misreporting of income. The Tribunal found that the AO's action of invoking the higher penalty rate for misreporting was not justified. It was established that the penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income carried different rates under Section 270A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty should have been restricted to the rate applicable for under-reporting of income, which is 50%.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.