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 deleted penalty under section 271(1)(c) imposed on assessee for two fundamental reasons. First, the penalty notice under section 274 was defective as it failed to specify whether the charge pertained to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, rendering the penalty procedurally invalid. Second, the Assessing Officer made additions on ad hoc basis by disallowing ten percent of Magazine and Journal expenses without concrete evidence, treating them as unjustified and excessive. The tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on estimated income additions made without specific evidence of concealment or wilful default. Following established precedent, mere rejection of books and assessment on estimate basis does not establish fraud or gross negligence warranting penalty imposition. Appeal decided in favour of assessee with complete deletion of disputed penalty.
ITAT deleted penalty under section 271(1)(c) imposed on assessee for two fundamental reasons. First, the penalty notice under section 274 was defective as it failed to specify whether the charge pertained to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, rendering the penalty procedurally invalid. Second, the Assessing Officer made additions on ad hoc basis by disallowing ten percent of Magazine and Journal expenses without concrete evidence, treating them as unjustified and excessive. The tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on estimated income additions made without specific evidence of concealment or wilful default. Following established precedent, mere rejection of books and assessment on estimate basis does not establish fraud or gross negligence warranting penalty imposition. Appeal decided in favour of assessee with complete deletion of disputed penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.