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 u/s 271C - Period of limitation - Failure to deduct TDS - The Appellate Tribunal analyzed the facts and submissions of both parties. It was observed that the assessee had not deducted TDS as reported by the Tax Auditor, leading to a reference made by the Assessing Officer (AO) to the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT). The Tribunal delved into the interpretation of the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c) of the Act. It considered the date of completion of quantum proceedings and the initiation of penalty proceedings. Referring to a relevant judicial precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty order was indeed barred by limitation.
Levy of penalty u/s 271C - Period of limitation - Failure to deduct TDS - The Appellate Tribunal analyzed the facts and submissions of both parties. It was observed that the assessee had not deducted TDS as reported by the Tax Auditor, leading to a reference made by the Assessing Officer (AO) to the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT). The Tribunal delved into the interpretation of the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c) of the Act. It considered the date of completion of quantum proceedings and the initiation of penalty proceedings. Referring to a relevant judicial precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty order was indeed barred by limitation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.