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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
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was no concealment as all necessary facts were available on record, and the disallowance of the claim admitted to be withdrawn by the assessee in the quantum proceedings was due to a wrong claim made.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 
