Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1081 to 1100 of 95918 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 held that filing an adjournment application in response to a notice issued under section 142(1) does not constitute non-compliance under section 272A(1)(d). The assessee had replied to the notice seeking additional time, and there was no evidence that this request was rejected by a speaking order from the AO. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty without addressing the fact that the adjournment request was unconsidered. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee made a valid compliance by responding to the notice, negating any willful avoidance. The penalty imposed under section 272A(1)(d) was therefore quashed, and the appeal was allowed.
The ITAT held that filing an adjournment application in response to a notice issued under section 142(1) does not constitute non-compliance under section 272A(1)(d). The assessee had replied to the notice seeking additional time, and there was no evidence that this request was rejected by a speaking order from the AO. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty without addressing the fact that the adjournment request was unconsidered. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee made a valid compliance by responding to the notice, negating any willful avoidance. The penalty imposed under section 272A(1)(d) was therefore quashed, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
