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 assessee's failure to offer long-term capital gains from the transfer of immovable property in the correct assessment year was due to ignorance rather than willful concealment. Although the income should have been declared in AY 2003-04, it was instead disclosed in AY 2011-12, and the tax liability was duly computed and paid. Consequently, the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified as there was no intention to evade tax. The penalty order was set aside, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
The ITAT held that the assessee's failure to offer long-term capital gains from the transfer of immovable property in the correct assessment year was due to ignorance rather than willful concealment. Although the income should have been declared in AY 2003-04, it was instead disclosed in AY 2011-12, and the tax liability was duly computed and paid. Consequently, the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified as there was no intention to evade tax. The penalty order was set aside, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.