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 ruled that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained where income assessment was based on estimated net profit rate of 24.50% versus assessee's declared 22.72%. When Assessing Officer resorts to income estimation after rejecting books of accounts under Section 145(3), it does not automatically establish concealment or furnishing of inaccurate income particulars. Assessee demonstrated through comparable resort financials that declared profit margins aligned with industry standards. Since additions resulted from estimation rather than proven misrepresentation, and Revenue accepted the estimated rate basis, penalty imposition was unwarranted. Appeal allowed and penalty deleted.
ITAT ruled that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained where income assessment was based on estimated net profit rate of 24.50% versus assessee's declared 22.72%. When Assessing Officer resorts to income estimation after rejecting books of accounts under Section 145(3), it does not automatically establish concealment or furnishing of inaccurate income particulars. Assessee demonstrated through comparable resort financials that declared profit margins aligned with industry standards. Since additions resulted from estimation rather than proven misrepresentation, and Revenue accepted the estimated rate basis, penalty imposition was unwarranted. Appeal allowed and penalty deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.