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 allowed the assessee's appeal against penalty order under Section 271B, holding it void ab initio for being time-barred. The penalty notice was issued on 25.12.2019, requiring the penalty order to be passed by 30.06.2020 per Section 275(1)(c). However, the Assessing Officer passed the order on 30.07.2021, exceeding the statutory limitation period. The tribunal ruled that the penalty order was passed without jurisdiction and beyond prescribed time limits, violating procedural requirements and statutory conditions for penalty imposition. The order suffered from legal infirmity and could not be sustained, resulting in its complete set-aside.
ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal against penalty order under Section 271B, holding it void ab initio for being time-barred. The penalty notice was issued on 25.12.2019, requiring the penalty order to be passed by 30.06.2020 per Section 275(1)(c). However, the Assessing Officer passed the order on 30.07.2021, exceeding the statutory limitation period. The tribunal ruled that the penalty order was passed without jurisdiction and beyond prescribed time limits, violating procedural requirements and statutory conditions for penalty imposition. The order suffered from legal infirmity and could not be sustained, resulting in its complete set-aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.