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" ?
HC quashed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for non-filing of ITR within prescribed period, ruling no concealment of income occurred. Assessee had uploaded financial statements and tax audit report, paid all taxes, but failed to file ITR due to inadvertent human error, subsequently filing upon s.148 notice. Court held Explanation 3 targets dishonest persons concealing income to evade taxes, not bonafide mistakes where no tax liability exists. Since assessee was entitled to refund with no concealment of particulars, AO erred in applying s.271(1)(c) and calculating penalty amount. Both AO and Revisional Authority failed to appreciate factual circumstances. Assessee's appeal allowed, penalty set aside.
HC quashed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for non-filing of ITR within prescribed period, ruling no concealment of income occurred. Assessee had uploaded financial statements and tax audit report, paid all taxes, but failed to file ITR due to inadvertent human error, subsequently filing upon s.148 notice. Court held Explanation 3 targets dishonest persons concealing income to evade taxes, not bonafide mistakes where no tax liability exists. Since assessee was entitled to refund with no concealment of particulars, AO erred in applying s.271(1)(c) and calculating penalty amount. Both AO and Revisional Authority failed to appreciate factual circumstances. Assessee's appeal allowed, penalty set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.