Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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 4827 
Join Channel 
