Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed for excess deduction claimed u/s 10B. The assessee furnished all relevant facts for computing total income, and provided detailed explanations regarding the claim u/s 10B, including the number of manufacturing divisions, bifurcation of expenditure, and availability of carried forward losses. The explanation was not found false, and the onus to prove falsity lies on the revenue. The claim was an allowable deduction, though the quantum was reworked by the Assessing Officer using different arithmetic. All details and justifications were provided in the return itself. The amount of tax sought to be evaded under explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) was indeterminable for imposing penalty. The assessee's decision to not appeal the reduction of claim does not imply lack of bona fides. The CIT(A) rightly deleted the penalty, and no interference is warranted.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed for excess deduction claimed u/s 10B. The assessee furnished all relevant facts for computing total income, and provided detailed explanations regarding the claim u/s 10B, including the number of manufacturing divisions, bifurcation of expenditure, and availability of carried forward losses. The explanation was not found false, and the onus to prove falsity lies on the revenue. The claim was an allowable deduction, though the quantum was reworked by the Assessing Officer using different arithmetic. All details and justifications were provided in the return itself. The amount of tax sought to be evaded under explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) was indeterminable for imposing penalty. The assessee's decision to not appeal the reduction of claim does not imply lack of bona fides. The CIT(A) rightly deleted the penalty, and no interference is warranted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
