Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
The Appellate Tribunal considered the imposition of penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with a notice u/s 142(1). The assessee eventually responded to the notice and provided the required documents, with a valid reason for the delay. The Assessing Officer accepted the income return after examining the documents. The Tribunal found a reasonable cause for the initial failure to respond and decided to delete the penalty u/s 272A(1)(d). Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed.
The Appellate Tribunal considered the imposition of penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with a notice u/s 142(1). The assessee eventually responded to the notice and provided the required documents, with a valid reason for the delay. The Assessing Officer accepted the income return after examining the documents. The Tribunal found a reasonable cause for the initial failure to respond and decided to delete the penalty u/s 272A(1)(d). Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
