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" ?
Clause 444 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, mirrors Section 271AAD of the Income-tax Act, 1961, imposing penalties equal to the aggregate amount of false or omitted accounting entries made with intent to evade tax. It applies to both the taxpayer and any person causing such entries, covering forged documents, invoices without actual supply, and transactions involving non-existent persons. The penalty can be imposed by the Assessing Officer and appellate authorities. While the provision aims to deter tax evasion and ensure accurate accounting, it introduces challenges including proving intent, defining third-party liability, and the absence of penalty mitigation mechanisms. Clause 444 consolidates existing policy with minimal changes, maintaining strict penalties and broad coverage, but may require further clarification to balance enforcement with fairness and reduce litigation over subjective elements like intent and causation.
Clause 444 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, mirrors Section 271AAD of the Income-tax Act, 1961, imposing penalties equal to the aggregate amount of false or omitted accounting entries made with intent to evade tax. It applies to both the taxpayer and any person causing such entries, covering forged documents, invoices without actual supply, and transactions involving non-existent persons. The penalty can be imposed by the Assessing Officer and appellate authorities. While the provision aims to deter tax evasion and ensure accurate accounting, it introduces challenges including proving intent, defining third-party liability, and the absence of penalty mitigation mechanisms. Clause 444 consolidates existing policy with minimal changes, maintaining strict penalties and broad coverage, but may require further clarification to balance enforcement with fairness and reduce litigation over subjective elements like intent and causation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.