Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
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...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessee did not disclose non-eligibility of brought forward losses in the return. The Assessee voluntarily paid additional taxes before assessment proceedings. The Tribunal held that the Assessee's actions were not deliberate inaccuracies. The Tribunal found no concealment or inaccurate particulars at the time of filing the return. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's claim that the Assessee could have claimed a refund if not selected for scrutiny. The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessee's explanation was bona fide and that the penalty under u/s 271(1)(c) was not justified. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Assessee, stating that the conditions for imposing the penalty were not met.
The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessee did not disclose non-eligibility of brought forward losses in the return. The Assessee voluntarily paid additional taxes before assessment proceedings. The Tribunal held that the Assessee's actions were not deliberate inaccuracies. The Tribunal found no concealment or inaccurate particulars at the time of filing the return. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's claim that the Assessee could have claimed a refund if not selected for scrutiny. The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessee's explanation was bona fide and that the penalty under u/s 271(1)(c) was not justified. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Assessee, stating that the conditions for imposing the penalty were not met.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.