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 allowed the appeal and quashed the penalty imposed under section 271B for failure to get accounts audited under section 44AB, holding that the assessee was an authorised dealer/agent selling principal's milk products for a fixed commission and thus provided services on behalf of the principal. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation as to the business modus operandi was improperly rejected by the lower authorities and, applying consistent precedent, held the penalty untenable. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the penalty and directed the AO to delete the levy; the appeal by the assessee was allowed.
The ITAT allowed the appeal and quashed the penalty imposed under section 271B for failure to get accounts audited under section 44AB, holding that the assessee was an authorised dealer/agent selling principal's milk products for a fixed commission and thus provided services on behalf of the principal. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation as to the business modus operandi was improperly rejected by the lower authorities and, applying consistent precedent, held the penalty untenable. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the penalty and directed the AO to delete the levy; the appeal by the assessee was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.