Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income - adjustment made u/s 92CA - penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) on the adjustment made u/s 92CA is not legally valid. CIT(A) rightly deleted addition as AO relied on adjustment made by TPO without examining whether penalty was imposable. Explanation 7 to Section 271(1)(c) places onus on assessee to show ALP computed u/s 92C in good faith and due diligence. Assessee computed ALP per Section 92C, no dispute over MAM, PLI or timescale. AO/TPO adopted different comparables. AO did not allege lack of good faith and due diligence. AO failed to demonstrate specific act, fact or conduct proving lack of good faith and due diligence. Lack of due diligence in ALP determination not indicated or inferable. Conditions for invoking Explanation 7 to Section 271(1)(c) did not exist. Revenue's appeal dismissed.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income - adjustment made u/s 92CA - penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) on the adjustment made u/s 92CA is not legally valid. CIT(A) rightly deleted addition as AO relied on adjustment made by TPO without examining whether penalty was imposable. Explanation 7 to Section 271(1)(c) places onus on assessee to show ALP computed u/s 92C in good faith and due diligence. Assessee computed ALP per Section 92C, no dispute over MAM, PLI or timescale. AO/TPO adopted different comparables. AO did not allege lack of good faith and due diligence. AO failed to demonstrate specific act, fact or conduct proving lack of good faith and due diligence. Lack of due diligence in ALP determination not indicated or inferable. Conditions for invoking Explanation 7 to Section 271(1)(c) did not exist. Revenue's appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
