Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The ITAT held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied merely because the assessee's interpretation of having no fixed place PE in India was not accepted, as the issue was debatable and pending before the High Court. The assessee had disclosed all relevant facts and acted on a bona fide belief supported by judicial precedents. Since penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings, and concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars is not established, the penalty imposed for AY 2011-12 and subsequent years 2012-13 to 2016-17 was deleted. The AO was directed to rescind the penalty, affirming that a disputed legal question does not warrant penalty in absence of deliberate concealment or misrepresentation. The appeal was allowed accordingly.
The ITAT held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied merely because the assessee's interpretation of having no fixed place PE in India was not accepted, as the issue was debatable and pending before the High Court. The assessee had disclosed all relevant facts and acted on a bona fide belief supported by judicial precedents. Since penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings, and concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars is not established, the penalty imposed for AY 2011-12 and subsequent years 2012-13 to 2016-17 was deleted. The AO was directed to rescind the penalty, affirming that a disputed legal question does not warrant penalty in absence of deliberate concealment or misrepresentation. The appeal was allowed accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
