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" ?
ITAT dismissed Revenue's appeal against CIT(A)'s order canceling penalty under s.271(1)(c). Assessee's claim for Mine Reclamation Expenses, though disallowed, was based on bonafide belief of allowability under s.37(1) per Mineral Conservation Rules. AO erroneously concluded absence of explanation despite documented submissions. Assessee disclosed primary facts and demonstrated reasonable cause under s.273B. Additionally, penalty notice under s.274 cited furnishing inaccurate particulars, while final order penalized for concealment of income, rendering penalty legally unsustainable due to charge inconsistency. ITAT upheld that no penalty was warranted given disclosed facts and reasonable cause defense.
ITAT dismissed Revenue's appeal against CIT(A)'s order canceling penalty under s.271(1)(c). Assessee's claim for Mine Reclamation Expenses, though disallowed, was based on bonafide belief of allowability under s.37(1) per Mineral Conservation Rules. AO erroneously concluded absence of explanation despite documented submissions. Assessee disclosed primary facts and demonstrated reasonable cause under s.273B. Additionally, penalty notice under s.274 cited furnishing inaccurate particulars, while final order penalized for concealment of income, rendering penalty legally unsustainable due to charge inconsistency. ITAT upheld that no penalty was warranted given disclosed facts and reasonable cause defense.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.