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" ?
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed as the assessee did not make disallowance u/s 14A or compute income for administrative/indirect common expenses incurred in relation to earning exempt income. The court held that making an incorrect claim in law cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee maintained separate books, investments were from own capital, interest payments were for business, and direct expenditure for exempt income was debited to personal accounts. No information in the return was found incorrect or inaccurate. The case was covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products (P.) Ltd. and ITAT Delhi's decision in M/s. Mohair Investment and Trading Company (P.) Ltd., where the issue was debatable and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not sustainable. The revenue failed to show that the assessee concealed or furnished incorrect particulars of income.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed as the assessee did not make disallowance u/s 14A or compute income for administrative/indirect common expenses incurred in relation to earning exempt income. The court held that making an incorrect claim in law cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee maintained separate books, investments were from own capital, interest payments were for business, and direct expenditure for exempt income was debited to personal accounts. No information in the return was found incorrect or inaccurate. The case was covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products (P.) Ltd. and ITAT Delhi's decision in M/s. Mohair Investment and Trading Company (P.) Ltd., where the issue was debatable and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not sustainable. The revenue failed to show that the assessee concealed or furnished incorrect particulars of income.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.