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 proposed Clause 446 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, mandates penalties for failure to get accounts audited or to furnish audit reports as required, mirroring the existing Section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Both provisions impose a penalty capped at 0.5% of turnover or gross receipts, not exceeding Rs. 1,50,000, and empower the Assessing Officer to impose such penalties. Key differences include updated terminology, a shift from "previous year" to "tax year," and the absence of an explicit "reasonable cause" defense in Clause 446, potentially indicating stricter liability. While Section 271B allows relief under general provisions, Clause 446's omission of this safeguard may increase enforcement rigidity. The clause reflects legislative modernization aimed at enhancing compliance and administrative clarity, but may require judicial or administrative interpretation to resolve ambiguities related to relief and definitions. Taxpayers must ensure timely audits and report submissions to avoid penalties.
The proposed Clause 446 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, mandates penalties for failure to get accounts audited or to furnish audit reports as required, mirroring the existing Section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Both provisions impose a penalty capped at 0.5% of turnover or gross receipts, not exceeding Rs. 1,50,000, and empower the Assessing Officer to impose such penalties. Key differences include updated terminology, a shift from "previous year" to "tax year," and the absence of an explicit "reasonable cause" defense in Clause 446, potentially indicating stricter liability. While Section 271B allows relief under general provisions, Clause 446's omission of this safeguard may increase enforcement rigidity. The clause reflects legislative modernization aimed at enhancing compliance and administrative clarity, but may require judicial or administrative interpretation to resolve ambiguities related to relief and definitions. Taxpayers must ensure timely audits and report submissions to avoid penalties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.