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 dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalty under Section 271D for accepting cash loans/deposits in violation of Section 269SS. The tribunal found no substantive evidence supporting the appellant's claim of bona fide belief or reasonable cause for cash transactions. The appellant failed to establish factual foundations demonstrating why the statutory provisions were inapplicable. The tribunal emphasized that mere assertions without concrete proof cannot negate the penalty. Consequently, the lower authorities' orders were confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed, maintaining the imposed penalty for non-compliance with statutory cash transaction restrictions.
ITAT dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalty under Section 271D for accepting cash loans/deposits in violation of Section 269SS. The tribunal found no substantive evidence supporting the appellant's claim of bona fide belief or reasonable cause for cash transactions. The appellant failed to establish factual foundations demonstrating why the statutory provisions were inapplicable. The tribunal emphasized that mere assertions without concrete proof cannot negate the penalty. Consequently, the lower authorities' orders were confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed, maintaining the imposed penalty for non-compliance with statutory cash transaction restrictions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.