Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Penalty levied u/s 274 read with Section 270A - assessee computed tax on disallowed depreciation amount at maximum marginal rate and levied 200% penalty on payable tax - held, Assessing Officer (AO) contradicted himself by levying penalty while framing assessment with Nil income despite depreciation disallowance. AO resorted to compute notional tax on disallowance where no tax payable by assessee. Assessee did not under-report income as per Section 270A(2). Section 270A(7) refers to penalty on under-reported income tax. No tax payable as assessee spent over 85% of revenue. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rightly deleted penalty. Revision u/s 263 - Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) claimed AO did not disallow depreciation claim, amounting to double deduction - held, AO disallowed depreciation u/s 11(6) and assessed income at Nil as assessee applied over 85% of income u/s 11. Argument accepted that since AO disallowed depreciation, CIT(E)'s order u/s 263 has no merits. Order u/s 263 quashed - decided in favor of assessee.
Penalty levied u/s 274 read with Section 270A - assessee computed tax on disallowed depreciation amount at maximum marginal rate and levied 200% penalty on payable tax - held, Assessing Officer (AO) contradicted himself by levying penalty while framing assessment with Nil income despite depreciation disallowance. AO resorted to compute notional tax on disallowance where no tax payable by assessee. Assessee did not under-report income as per Section 270A(2). Section 270A(7) refers to penalty on under-reported income tax. No tax payable as assessee spent over 85% of revenue. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rightly deleted penalty. Revision u/s 263 - Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) claimed AO did not disallow depreciation claim, amounting to double deduction - held, AO disallowed depreciation u/s 11(6) and assessed income at Nil as assessee applied over 85% of income u/s 11. Argument accepted that since AO disallowed depreciation, CIT(E)'s order u/s 263 has no merits. Order u/s 263 quashed - decided in favor of assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.