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 held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was not leviable as the assessee rectified the inadvertent erroneous claim of deduction under section 54F by filing a revised computation during assessment proceedings, demonstrating bona fide intent. The tribunal distinguished between concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars, noting the AO initiated penalty proceedings for concealment but levied penalty for inaccurate particulars without proper satisfaction or notice under that limb. This procedural inconsistency rendered the penalty unsustainable. Consequently, the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was deleted, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
The ITAT held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was not leviable as the assessee rectified the inadvertent erroneous claim of deduction under section 54F by filing a revised computation during assessment proceedings, demonstrating bona fide intent. The tribunal distinguished between concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars, noting the AO initiated penalty proceedings for concealment but levied penalty for inaccurate particulars without proper satisfaction or notice under that limb. This procedural inconsistency rendered the penalty unsustainable. Consequently, the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was deleted, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.