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 271(1)(c) was levied for disallowance u/s 80IB(10). The assessee's claim was based on financial statements, adopting one of the possible interpretations, and similar claims were made in earlier years without penalty. The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be automatic for every addition/disallowance in assessment proceedings, relying on Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory case. The assessee made a bona fide claim believing it was allowable under the law. Reliance Petroleum Products Ltd. case held that an incorrect claim in law cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Thus, the penalty was set aside in favor of the assessee.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied for disallowance u/s 80IB(10). The assessee's claim was based on financial statements, adopting one of the possible interpretations, and similar claims were made in earlier years without penalty. The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be automatic for every addition/disallowance in assessment proceedings, relying on Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory case. The assessee made a bona fide claim believing it was allowable under the law. Reliance Petroleum Products Ltd. case held that an incorrect claim in law cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Thus, the penalty was set aside in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.