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...
The ITAT ruled that penalties under sections 271(1)(c) and 270A against the taxpayer were improper and directed their deletion. The tribunal held that merely making an unsustainable claim that receipts from software distribution were not taxable in India cannot constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars to warrant penalty under s.271(1)(c), especially when the taxpayer fully cooperated during assessment proceedings. Regarding s.270A penalty for under-reported income (where DRP reduced attribution from 80% to 30%), the ITAT determined this was not an automatic penalty situation, citing D.C.Polyester and Hindustan Steel Ltd precedents. The tribunal found the exception under s.270A(6)(a) applicable as the taxpayer had disclosed all material facts and provided bona fide explanations.
The ITAT ruled that penalties under sections 271(1)(c) and 270A against the taxpayer were improper and directed their deletion. The tribunal held that merely making an unsustainable claim that receipts from software distribution were not taxable in India cannot constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars to warrant penalty under s.271(1)(c), especially when the taxpayer fully cooperated during assessment proceedings. Regarding s.270A penalty for under-reported income (where DRP reduced attribution from 80% to 30%), the ITAT determined this was not an automatic penalty situation, citing D.C.Polyester and Hindustan Steel Ltd precedents. The tribunal found the exception under s.270A(6)(a) applicable as the taxpayer had disclosed all material facts and provided bona fide explanations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
