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" ?
The ITAT dismissed the revenue's miscellaneous application challenging the penalty under section 271(1)(c) due to the absence of valid proof of approval from the JCIT for imposing the penalty. The revenue failed to produce a duly signed approval document, presenting only unsigned copies dated 17/03/2020, which were rejected based on established precedent requiring signed authorization before issuance. Consequently, without valid approval evidence, the penalty order lacked procedural compliance, leading to the dismissal of the application.
The ITAT dismissed the revenue's miscellaneous application challenging the penalty under section 271(1)(c) due to the absence of valid proof of approval from the JCIT for imposing the penalty. The revenue failed to produce a duly signed approval document, presenting only unsigned copies dated 17/03/2020, which were rejected based on established precedent requiring signed authorization before issuance. Consequently, without valid approval evidence, the penalty order lacked procedural compliance, leading to the dismissal of the application.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.