Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97618 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Disallowance made u/s 43B regarding expenses claimed by the assessee. There was confusion about which limb penalty is to be levied. The disallowance confirmed by the Tribunal u/s 43B is not due to concealment of income by the assessee, who filed all details pertaining to the claimed expenditure. However, certain expenditure could be allowed only on actual payment, leading to disallowance u/s 43B. Regarding the addition on increase in liability, the assessee provided confirmations, and there is no doubt about their veracity. Merely because the addition has been partly confirmed by the Tribunal cannot be a reason to levy penalty. The confirmations filed by the assessee were not verified by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Levy of penalty is not a mechanical procedure and requires checks and balances. Additions sustained by the Tribunal is not a fit case to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The assessee's appeal is allowed.
Disallowance made u/s 43B regarding expenses claimed by the assessee. There was confusion about which limb penalty is to be levied. The disallowance confirmed by the Tribunal u/s 43B is not due to concealment of income by the assessee, who filed all details pertaining to the claimed expenditure. However, certain expenditure could be allowed only on actual payment, leading to disallowance u/s 43B. Regarding the addition on increase in liability, the assessee provided confirmations, and there is no doubt about their veracity. Merely because the addition has been partly confirmed by the Tribunal cannot be a reason to levy penalty. The confirmations filed by the assessee were not verified by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Levy of penalty is not a mechanical procedure and requires checks and balances. Additions sustained by the Tribunal is not a fit case to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The assessee's appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
