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 - non filling up of Part 'B' of the e-Way Bill - existence of mens rea or not The High Court referenced a specific case and highlighted that the issue of non-filling up of Part 'B' of the e-Way Bill was addressed in previous judgments. It emphasized that mere technical errors without intent to evade tax should not lead to penalties. It was reiterated that there was no evidence of mens rea or intent to evade tax on the petitioner's part. Thus, the imposition of penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act was deemed unjustified.
Levy of penalty - non filling up of Part 'B' of the e-Way Bill - existence of mens rea or not The High Court referenced a specific case and highlighted that the issue of non-filling up of Part 'B' of the e-Way Bill was addressed in previous judgments. It emphasized that mere technical errors without intent to evade tax should not lead to penalties. It was reiterated that there was no evidence of mens rea or intent to evade tax on the petitioner's part. Thus, the imposition of penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act was deemed unjustified.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
