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 upheld the assessee's appeal, finding no justifiable basis to reclassify share application money as loans/deposits under Section 269SS. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's precedent, which clarified that share application money does not fall under loan or deposit provisions. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271D was not leviable. The decision affirmed the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty, emphasizing strict interpretation of taxing statutes and procedural requirements in penalty proceedings.
ITAT upheld the assessee's appeal, finding no justifiable basis to reclassify share application money as loans/deposits under Section 269SS. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's precedent, which clarified that share application money does not fall under loan or deposit provisions. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271D was not leviable. The decision affirmed the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty, emphasizing strict interpretation of taxing statutes and procedural requirements in penalty proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.