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...
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...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not leviable on additional income offered by the assessee in response to a notice issued u/s 148, as held in Kirit Dahyabhai Patel and Ravi Sud cases. Regarding the addition u/s 69 on account of a bank deposit, mere cash deposit cannot be considered the assessee's income. Failure to file an appeal does not imply admission by the assessee. Each addition cannot be the basis for levying a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) unless the Assessing Officer finds that the assessee deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed income. The assessee contended that the bank account credited with the deposit was shown in the cash book, and the deposit was not unexplained. Considering these facts, no justification exists for levying a penalty, even on the addition. The assessee's appeal is allowed.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not leviable on additional income offered by the assessee in response to a notice issued u/s 148, as held in Kirit Dahyabhai Patel and Ravi Sud cases. Regarding the addition u/s 69 on account of a bank deposit, mere cash deposit cannot be considered the assessee's income. Failure to file an appeal does not imply admission by the assessee. Each addition cannot be the basis for levying a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) unless the Assessing Officer finds that the assessee deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed income. The assessee contended that the bank account credited with the deposit was shown in the cash book, and the deposit was not unexplained. Considering these facts, no justification exists for levying a penalty, even on the addition. The assessee's appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.