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 penalty proceedings under section 270A require valid jurisdiction, which must be assumed by the AO at the time of assessment or reassessment by issuing a show cause notice specifying the charge of under-reporting or misreporting. The CIT(A) cannot assume dual jurisdiction to levy penalty on the same facts once the AO has initiated penalty proceedings. In this case, the AO had assumed jurisdiction regarding surrendered income disclosed via revised return post-survey under section 133A, but penalty proceedings were kept pending. The CIT(A)'s issuance of penalty notice under section 274 read with 270A and passing of penalty order without valid jurisdiction was held to be legally untenable. Consequently, the penalty imposed by the CIT(A) was quashed, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The ITAT held that penalty proceedings under section 270A require valid jurisdiction, which must be assumed by the AO at the time of assessment or reassessment by issuing a show cause notice specifying the charge of under-reporting or misreporting. The CIT(A) cannot assume dual jurisdiction to levy penalty on the same facts once the AO has initiated penalty proceedings. In this case, the AO had assumed jurisdiction regarding surrendered income disclosed via revised return post-survey under section 133A, but penalty proceedings were kept pending. The CIT(A)'s issuance of penalty notice under section 274 read with 270A and passing of penalty order without valid jurisdiction was held to be legally untenable. Consequently, the penalty imposed by the CIT(A) was quashed, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
