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...
Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal and held that no penalty u/s 270A could be levied for non-payment of service tax liability and employees' contribution to PF before the due date. It was an admitted fact that both amounts were already available in the audit report, which formed the basis for disallowance by the AO. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP, it cannot be considered mis-reporting. The Supreme Court in Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. held that no penalty could be imposed for a mistake disclosed in the tax audit report. Since no adjustment was made in the intimation u/s 143(1), it was not a fit case for levying penalty u/s 270A.
The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal and held that no penalty u/s 270A could be levied for non-payment of service tax liability and employees' contribution to PF before the due date. It was an admitted fact that both amounts were already available in the audit report, which formed the basis for disallowance by the AO. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP, it cannot be considered mis-reporting. The Supreme Court in Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. held that no penalty could be imposed for a mistake disclosed in the tax audit report. Since no adjustment was made in the intimation u/s 143(1), it was not a fit case for levying penalty u/s 270A.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.