Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96047 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 271(1)(c) - claim of incorrect deduction u/s 80GGA - The Appellate Tribunal analyzed the timeline of events and noted that the assessee had voluntarily offered the disputed deductions for taxation before the initiation of reassessment proceedings. It was observed that the assessee had withdrawn the claims of deductions and paid the necessary taxes well before the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. The Tribunal found no basis in the findings of the lower authorities that there was concealment of income on the part of the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal found no justification for the imposition of penalties u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and proceeded to delete the penalties for both assessment years.
Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - claim of incorrect deduction u/s 80GGA - The Appellate Tribunal analyzed the timeline of events and noted that the assessee had voluntarily offered the disputed deductions for taxation before the initiation of reassessment proceedings. It was observed that the assessee had withdrawn the claims of deductions and paid the necessary taxes well before the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. The Tribunal found no basis in the findings of the lower authorities that there was concealment of income on the part of the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal found no justification for the imposition of penalties u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and proceeded to delete the penalties for both assessment years.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.