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 HC held that the penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(b) and prosecution under s. 276CC arise from distinct statutory defaults and the quashing of penalty under s. 271(1)(b) does not extinguish criminal liability under s. 276CC. However, criminal liability under s. 276CC requires proof of wilful default, an essential element of mens rea. The reverse burden under s. 278E shifts the onus to the accused to disprove wilfulness beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the Respondent successfully rebutted the presumption, demonstrating that the failure to file returns in response to the s. 153A notice was not wilful. Consequently, despite the erroneous legal reasoning by the Appellate Court, the acquittal was upheld on the valid ground of absence of wilful default, thereby negating criminal culpability under s. 276CC.
The HC held that the penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(b) and prosecution under s. 276CC arise from distinct statutory defaults and the quashing of penalty under s. 271(1)(b) does not extinguish criminal liability under s. 276CC. However, criminal liability under s. 276CC requires proof of wilful default, an essential element of mens rea. The reverse burden under s. 278E shifts the onus to the accused to disprove wilfulness beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the Respondent successfully rebutted the presumption, demonstrating that the failure to file returns in response to the s. 153A notice was not wilful. Consequently, despite the erroneous legal reasoning by the Appellate Court, the acquittal was upheld on the valid ground of absence of wilful default, thereby negating criminal culpability under s. 276CC.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.