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" ?
The ITAT reduced the penalty imposed under Section 272B(2) from Rs. 23,20,000 to Rs. 10,000 for the assessee's failure to obtain and report PAN details of 232 customers who purchased jewellery. The Tribunal determined that multiple instances of non-compliance constituted a single default rather than separate offenses, considering this was the first year after the PAN reporting requirement was introduced (effective January 2016). The decision aligned with precedent from the Delhi HC in DHTC Logistic Ltd. and was consistent with the AO's previous treatment of similar defaults by the same assessee. The ITAT noted that the statutory amendment specifying "ten thousand rupees for each such default" only came into effect from September 2019.
The ITAT reduced the penalty imposed under Section 272B(2) from Rs. 23,20,000 to Rs. 10,000 for the assessee's failure to obtain and report PAN details of 232 customers who purchased jewellery. The Tribunal determined that multiple instances of non-compliance constituted a single default rather than separate offenses, considering this was the first year after the PAN reporting requirement was introduced (effective January 2016). The decision aligned with precedent from the Delhi HC in DHTC Logistic Ltd. and was consistent with the AO's previous treatment of similar defaults by the same assessee. The ITAT noted that the statutory amendment specifying "ten thousand rupees for each such default" only came into effect from September 2019.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.