Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
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...
ITAT deleted penalty under section 271(1)(c) imposed on transfer pricing adjustments involving manufacturing and trading segments. TPO made adjustments by using PBIT/Sales instead of assessee's PBDIT/Sales as Profit Level Indicator, modifying filters and comparables for benchmarking, and excluding certain operating items. Revenue authorities levied penalty solely because TPO's adjustments were upheld by CIT(A) and partly confirmed by ITAT. ITAT held that assessee furnished accurate details in return and transfer pricing study report using prescribed TNMM method under section 92C. Adjustments arose from interpretational differences on debatable issues, not inaccurate particulars. Neither TPO nor CIT(A) found arm's length price computed without good faith or due diligence. Explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) governing transfer pricing penalties was neither invoked nor discussed. Penalty unsustainable as necessary conditions under Explanation 7 not satisfied. Appeal allowed.
ITAT deleted penalty under section 271(1)(c) imposed on transfer pricing adjustments involving manufacturing and trading segments. TPO made adjustments by using PBIT/Sales instead of assessee's PBDIT/Sales as Profit Level Indicator, modifying filters and comparables for benchmarking, and excluding certain operating items. Revenue authorities levied penalty solely because TPO's adjustments were upheld by CIT(A) and partly confirmed by ITAT. ITAT held that assessee furnished accurate details in return and transfer pricing study report using prescribed TNMM method under section 92C. Adjustments arose from interpretational differences on debatable issues, not inaccurate particulars. Neither TPO nor CIT(A) found arm's length price computed without good faith or due diligence. Explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) governing transfer pricing penalties was neither invoked nor discussed. Penalty unsustainable as necessary conditions under Explanation 7 not satisfied. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
