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" ?
ITAT upheld that the assessee failed to comply with successive...
Assessee penalized for persistent non-compliance with s.142(1); penalty under s.271(1)(b) reduced to Rs.10,000 on procedural ground while non-compliance facts upheld
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
ITAT upheld that the assessee failed to comply with successive notices issued under s.142(1) and offered no reasonable explanation; non-compliance persisted during penalty proceedings and before the Ld. CIT(A). However, ITAT found the AO erred in levying a composite penalty of Rs.20,000 under s.271(1)(b), observing that under s.271(1)(b) each distinct failure attracts a separate penalty and separate notice is requisite for multiple failures. Consequentially, ITAT reduced the penalty to Rs.10,000 and partly allowed the appeal, leaving the factual finding of non-compliance intact but modifying the quantum of penalty on procedural grounds.
ITAT upheld that the assessee failed to comply with successive notices issued under s.142(1) and offered no reasonable explanation; non-compliance persisted during penalty proceedings and before the Ld. CIT(A). However, ITAT found the AO erred in levying a composite penalty of Rs.20,000 under s.271(1)(b), observing that under s.271(1)(b) each distinct failure attracts a separate penalty and separate notice is requisite for multiple failures. Consequentially, ITAT reduced the penalty to Rs.10,000 and partly allowed the appeal, leaving the factual finding of non-compliance intact but modifying the quantum of penalty on procedural grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.