Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
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...
ITAT reversed penalty under s.271(1)(c) regarding transfer pricing adjustment on interest-free loans to associated enterprises. While TPO made upward adjustment at SBI PLR, later restricted to LIBOR+200bps, assessee had disclosed all relevant facts in returns. Bombay HC admitted appeal on substantial questions of law, indicating debatable nature of issue. Given that two reasonable interpretations were possible and necessary disclosures were made, penalty for furnishing inaccurate income particulars was deemed unjustified. The tribunal emphasized that when legal interpretations are genuinely disputable and pending higher court review, s.271(1)(c) penalties cannot be sustained. Revenue's grounds dismissed.
ITAT reversed penalty under s.271(1)(c) regarding transfer pricing adjustment on interest-free loans to associated enterprises. While TPO made upward adjustment at SBI PLR, later restricted to LIBOR+200bps, assessee had disclosed all relevant facts in returns. Bombay HC admitted appeal on substantial questions of law, indicating debatable nature of issue. Given that two reasonable interpretations were possible and necessary disclosures were made, penalty for furnishing inaccurate income particulars was deemed unjustified. The tribunal emphasized that when legal interpretations are genuinely disputable and pending higher court review, s.271(1)(c) penalties cannot be sustained. Revenue's grounds dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
