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 271(1)(c) - Defective notice u/s 274 - Emphasizing the principles outlined by the Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal reaffirmed the importance of clear and specific grounds for imposing penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It clarified that penalties should only be imposed based on the grounds stated in the notice, and the validity of assessment cannot be a subject matter of penalty proceedings. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument against the applicability of Section 292B to cure the defect in the notice under Section 274, reiterating that the notice did not conform to the intent and purpose of the Act.
Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Defective notice u/s 274 - Emphasizing the principles outlined by the Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal reaffirmed the importance of clear and specific grounds for imposing penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It clarified that penalties should only be imposed based on the grounds stated in the notice, and the validity of assessment cannot be a subject matter of penalty proceedings. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument against the applicability of Section 292B to cure the defect in the notice under Section 274, reiterating that the notice did not conform to the intent and purpose of the Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.