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...
Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96587 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 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.