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" ?
HC upheld penalty under s271(1)(c) for concealment of income where appellant transferred stock-in-trade at inflated market value and withdrew profits without full disclosure. The formation of firm and transaction pattern constituted a tax evasion scheme. Mere filing of capital account with returns was deemed insufficient for true disclosure. Court found appellant's explanation patently false and unsubstantiated as bona fide. Despite Explanation 1 to s147 being inapplicable, Explanation 1 to s271 supported penalty imposition. The minimum prescribed penalty was justified given the deliberate device adopted to evade taxes, and the finality of income addition assessment. Appeal dismissed.
HC upheld penalty under s271(1)(c) for concealment of income where appellant transferred stock-in-trade at inflated market value and withdrew profits without full disclosure. The formation of firm and transaction pattern constituted a tax evasion scheme. Mere filing of capital account with returns was deemed insufficient for true disclosure. Court found appellant's explanation patently false and unsubstantiated as bona fide. Despite Explanation 1 to s147 being inapplicable, Explanation 1 to s271 supported penalty imposition. The minimum prescribed penalty was justified given the deliberate device adopted to evade taxes, and the finality of income addition assessment. Appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.