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" ?
The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed u/ss 271(1)(c) and 271AAB of the Income Tax Act for additional income brought to tax owing to a search and seizure action. The Tribunal observed that the income was assessed based on material seized during the search, supported by a declaration u/s 131. The assessee's contention of voluntary surrender was rejected, as the additional income came to light solely due to the search action. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedents, including MAK Data Pvt Ltd and K P Madhusudan, which established that penalty is leviable when income is finally assessed higher than the returned income, irrespective of whether the variation arose from voluntary surrender or otherwise. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for the relevant assessment years and restored the penalty orders.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed u/ss 271(1)(c) and 271AAB of the Income Tax Act for additional income brought to tax owing to a search and seizure action. The Tribunal observed that the income was assessed based on material seized during the search, supported by a declaration u/s 131. The assessee's contention of voluntary surrender was rejected, as the additional income came to light solely due to the search action. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedents, including MAK Data Pvt Ltd and K P Madhusudan, which established that penalty is leviable when income is finally assessed higher than the returned income, irrespective of whether the variation arose from voluntary surrender or otherwise. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for the relevant assessment years and restored the penalty orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
