Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
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...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The assessee had not offered short-term capital gain u/s 50 on the sale of a depreciable fixed asset as income in the return or during scrutiny proceedings. The issue was whether the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income, attracting penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The Tribunal held that if the disclosure of facts is incorrect or false to the knowledge of the assessee, and this is established, then such disclosure cannot take the assessee out of the purview of concealment of particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars for the purpose of levy of penalty. However, in this case, there was no concealment as all necessary facts were available on record, and the disallowance of the claim admitted to be withdrawn by the assessee in the quantum proceedings was due to a wrong claim made. Therefore, the decision was in favor of the assessee, and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not leviable.
The assessee had not offered short-term capital gain u/s 50 on the sale of a depreciable fixed asset as income in the return or during scrutiny proceedings. The issue was whether the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income, attracting penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The Tribunal held that if the disclosure of facts is incorrect or false to the knowledge of the assessee, and this is established, then such disclosure cannot take the assessee out of the purview of concealment of particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars for the purpose of levy of penalty. However, in this case, there was no concealment as all necessary facts were available on record, and the disallowance of the claim admitted to be withdrawn by the assessee in the quantum proceedings was due to a wrong claim made. Therefore, the decision was in favor of the assessee, and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not leviable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
