Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
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...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96587 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 allowed the appeal of the non-resident assessee against the penalty imposed under section 272A(1)(d), holding that there was no willful default in compliance with statutory notices due to lack of effective service. The assessee, residing outside India for over thirty years with income not taxable in India, was unaware of the assessment and penalty proceedings until receipt of a demand notice via email. The Revenue failed to provide evidence of proper service of notices as required under the Act, particularly considering the assessee's non-resident status. The Tribunal concluded that the non-compliance resulted from lack of knowledge rather than deliberate neglect or defiance. Consequently, imposing penalty in these circumstances would be unjust. The penalty under section 272A(1)(d) was cancelled, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer.
The ITAT allowed the appeal of the non-resident assessee against the penalty imposed under section 272A(1)(d), holding that there was no willful default in compliance with statutory notices due to lack of effective service. The assessee, residing outside India for over thirty years with income not taxable in India, was unaware of the assessment and penalty proceedings until receipt of a demand notice via email. The Revenue failed to provide evidence of proper service of notices as required under the Act, particularly considering the assessee's non-resident status. The Tribunal concluded that the non-compliance resulted from lack of knowledge rather than deliberate neglect or defiance. Consequently, imposing penalty in these circumstances would be unjust. The penalty under section 272A(1)(d) was cancelled, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.