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 held that the one-time settlement received by the assessee on relinquishment of hotel purchase/operation rights constituted a capital receipt, not taxable remuneration, and therefore did not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c). Relying on apex-court parameters for characterisation of compensation for loss of source of income and on authority that full disclosure in the return negates penal liability, the Tribunal found no conscious and deliberate concealment. The Tribunal set aside the appellate authority's order, directed the AO to delete the penalty under section 271(1)(c), and allowed the assessee's appeal.
ITAT held that the one-time settlement received by the assessee on relinquishment of hotel purchase/operation rights constituted a capital receipt, not taxable remuneration, and therefore did not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c). Relying on apex-court parameters for characterisation of compensation for loss of source of income and on authority that full disclosure in the return negates penal liability, the Tribunal found no conscious and deliberate concealment. The Tribunal set aside the appellate authority's order, directed the AO to delete the penalty under section 271(1)(c), and allowed the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.