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 levied u/ss 271(1)(c) and 271AAA for unexplained investment and addition made by adopting net profit as per the books of accounts at 12.85% on the suppressed sales. The key points are: The addition was modified from gross profit basis to net profit basis by the CIT(A) and further restricted to 1% of turnover by the ITAT. Different authorities adopted varying estimates for determining the assessee's income, ranging from GP/NP on alleged suppressed turnover to 1% net profit on declared turnover. The addition towards undisclosed investments was deleted. The High Court confirmed the ITAT's order. In such cases of differing estimates, penalty cannot be levied for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The jurisdictional High Court's judgment in CIT vs. Valimkbhai H. Patel supported this view. Penalty under 271(1)(c) was deleted. For 271AAA, no penalty can be imposed on the remaining 1% net profit addition on declared turnover in the absence of identified assets representing undisclosed income.
Penalty levied u/ss 271(1)(c) and 271AAA for unexplained investment and addition made by adopting net profit as per the books of accounts at 12.85% on the suppressed sales. The key points are: The addition was modified from gross profit basis to net profit basis by the CIT(A) and further restricted to 1% of turnover by the ITAT. Different authorities adopted varying estimates for determining the assessee's income, ranging from GP/NP on alleged suppressed turnover to 1% net profit on declared turnover. The addition towards undisclosed investments was deleted. The High Court confirmed the ITAT's order. In such cases of differing estimates, penalty cannot be levied for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The jurisdictional High Court's judgment in CIT vs. Valimkbhai H. Patel supported this view. Penalty under 271(1)(c) was deleted. For 271AAA, no penalty can be imposed on the remaining 1% net profit addition on declared turnover in the absence of identified assets representing undisclosed income.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.