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 notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was invalid as the AO failed to strike off the irrelevant limb or indicate the relevant limb in the notice, rendering it mechanically issued and without application of mind. Consequently, the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) was quashed. The Tribunal relied on precedents establishing that a show cause notice must clearly specify the charge-whether concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars-to be valid. In the absence of such specification, the notice is defective, and the penalty cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the penalty order was set aside.
The ITAT held that the penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was invalid as the AO failed to strike off the irrelevant limb or indicate the relevant limb in the notice, rendering it mechanically issued and without application of mind. Consequently, the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) was quashed. The Tribunal relied on precedents establishing that a show cause notice must clearly specify the charge-whether concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars-to be valid. In the absence of such specification, the notice is defective, and the penalty cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the penalty order was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.