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 270A was imposed by disallowing 30% of indexed cost of development expenses concerning Long Term Capital Gain offered by the assessee due to failure to furnish certain supporting evidence. The assessee had submitted all details before the Assessing Officer and explained the reason for not furnishing a few vouchers as they were misplaced but was willing to produce them. The Assessing Officer proceeded to levy penalty u/s 270A on an estimated basis. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's action of levying penalty cannot be countenanced. Considering the assessee's bonafide explanation and disclosure of material facts, and as the disallowance was purely on estimation, the Tribunal held it is not a fit case for penalty u/s 270A for underreporting of income. The penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was directed to be deleted, allowing the assessee's appeal.
Penalty u/s 270A was imposed by disallowing 30% of indexed cost of development expenses concerning Long Term Capital Gain offered by the assessee due to failure to furnish certain supporting evidence. The assessee had submitted all details before the Assessing Officer and explained the reason for not furnishing a few vouchers as they were misplaced but was willing to produce them. The Assessing Officer proceeded to levy penalty u/s 270A on an estimated basis. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's action of levying penalty cannot be countenanced. Considering the assessee's bonafide explanation and disclosure of material facts, and as the disallowance was purely on estimation, the Tribunal held it is not a fit case for penalty u/s 270A for underreporting of income. The penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was directed to be deleted, allowing the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.