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 held that disallowance under section 35(2AB) does not automatically constitute under-reporting of income. The assessee fully disclosed all relevant facts in the ITR, and no evidence demonstrated intentional suppression or false claims. The tribunal found no inaccurate particulars were furnished, and a mere unsustainable legal claim does not equate to under-reporting. The penalty under section 270A was not leviable, particularly since the Form 3CL was issued post-ITR filing. The tribunal emphasized that without strict proof of intentional concealment or inaccuracy, penalty provisions cannot be invoked. The decision was rendered in favor of the assessee, negating the penalty imposition.
ITAT held that disallowance under section 35(2AB) does not automatically constitute under-reporting of income. The assessee fully disclosed all relevant facts in the ITR, and no evidence demonstrated intentional suppression or false claims. The tribunal found no inaccurate particulars were furnished, and a mere unsustainable legal claim does not equate to under-reporting. The penalty under section 270A was not leviable, particularly since the Form 3CL was issued post-ITR filing. The tribunal emphasized that without strict proof of intentional concealment or inaccuracy, penalty provisions cannot be invoked. The decision was rendered in favor of the assessee, negating the penalty imposition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.