Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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...
Page of 4824
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 96463 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Criminal complaint filed u/s 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable u/s 276C(2) read with Section 278B of the Income Tax Act. Petitioners failed to deposit assessed tax. Petitioners deposited tax liability about a year ago, prior to filing of complaint. Complaint lacks mention of such deposits. Petitioners deposited self-assessment tax before complaint filing and informed department via letter dated 28.03.2018. Complainant should have obtained fresh authorization regarding delayed interest and penalty only. No response from department to petitioners' request for waiver of interest and penalty in letter dated 28.03.2018. Authorization obtained in 2017 no longer valid after petitioners paid self-assessment tax in 2017-2018. Department needed fresh authorization for prosecution regarding interest and penalty. No wilful default in making assessed tax payment, applying ratio in Unique Trading Company case. Petitioners filed returns, declared tax liability, requested installments, indicating no wilful default. Amount deposited in 2017-2018, while complaint filed in 2019 without disclosing payments. Prosecution termed abuse of process of law. Complaint quashed and set aside by exercising extraordinary powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C.
Criminal complaint filed u/s 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable u/s 276C(2) read with Section 278B of the Income Tax Act. Petitioners failed to deposit assessed tax. Petitioners deposited tax liability about a year ago, prior to filing of complaint. Complaint lacks mention of such deposits. Petitioners deposited self-assessment tax before complaint filing and informed department via letter dated 28.03.2018. Complainant should have obtained fresh authorization regarding delayed interest and penalty only. No response from department to petitioners' request for waiver of interest and penalty in letter dated 28.03.2018. Authorization obtained in 2017 no longer valid after petitioners paid self-assessment tax in 2017-2018. Department needed fresh authorization for prosecution regarding interest and penalty. No wilful default in making assessed tax payment, applying ratio in Unique Trading Company case. Petitioners filed returns, declared tax liability, requested installments, indicating no wilful default. Amount deposited in 2017-2018, while complaint filed in 2019 without disclosing payments. Prosecution termed abuse of process of law. Complaint quashed and set aside by exercising extraordinary powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
