Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Pertaining to the levy of penalty u/s 271AAC(1), the Assessing Officer (AO) initially passed an order u/s 144, concluding the assessment on a best judgment basis and making an addition of Rs. 20 lakh to the assessee's total income at a special rate u/s 115BBE. However, upon perusal of the subsequent order passed pursuant to the Tribunal's directions, it was found that the AO accepted the total income declared by the assessee in its return of income, and no addition was made. Generally, the AO has the liberty to reconsider the levy of penalty, in accordance with the fresh assessment framed. Since in the present case, the assessee was assessed at the returned income in the second round of assessment proceedings, the penalty levied u/s 271AAC(1) was deemed unsustainable and quashed. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
Pertaining to the levy of penalty u/s 271AAC(1), the Assessing Officer (AO) initially passed an order u/s 144, concluding the assessment on a best judgment basis and making an addition of Rs. 20 lakh to the assessee's total income at a special rate u/s 115BBE. However, upon perusal of the subsequent order passed pursuant to the Tribunal's directions, it was found that the AO accepted the total income declared by the assessee in its return of income, and no addition was made. Generally, the AO has the liberty to reconsider the levy of penalty, in accordance with the fresh assessment framed. Since in the present case, the assessee was assessed at the returned income in the second round of assessment proceedings, the penalty levied u/s 271AAC(1) was deemed unsustainable and quashed. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.