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" ?
The Assessing Officer (AO) consciously deleted irrelevant portions from the show cause notice, mentioning only the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This constituted a correct charge for initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c). There was no defect in recording satisfaction or issuing the show cause notice u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) for initiating penalty proceedings. Once penalty proceedings were initiated on a definite charge and made known to the assessee through the assessment order and show cause notice, the assessee's objection holds no ground. Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is proper and justified as it is a case of furnishing incorrect particulars of income by claiming business loss instead of speculative loss not permissible under the Act. The Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the assessee's appeal and upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s order confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
The Assessing Officer (AO) consciously deleted irrelevant portions from the show cause notice, mentioning only the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This constituted a correct charge for initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c). There was no defect in recording satisfaction or issuing the show cause notice u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) for initiating penalty proceedings. Once penalty proceedings were initiated on a definite charge and made known to the assessee through the assessment order and show cause notice, the assessee's objection holds no ground. Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is proper and justified as it is a case of furnishing incorrect particulars of income by claiming business loss instead of speculative loss not permissible under the Act. The Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the assessee's appeal and upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s order confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.