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 s.271(1)(c) read with s.274 were vitiated where the AO's notice failed to specify which limb of s.271(1)(c) (concealment of particulars or furnishing of inaccurate particulars/under-reporting or misreporting) was invoked and did not strike out the irrelevant portion of the charge. Applying the controlling full-bench ratio, the Tribunal concluded that procedural infirmity deprived the assessee of fair notice; accordingly the penalty orders framed by the AO under s.271(1)(c) were held invalid and were quashed, with the appeal allowed in favour of the assessee.
The ITAT held that penalty proceedings under s.271(1)(c) read with s.274 were vitiated where the AO's notice failed to specify which limb of s.271(1)(c) (concealment of particulars or furnishing of inaccurate particulars/under-reporting or misreporting) was invoked and did not strike out the irrelevant portion of the charge. Applying the controlling full-bench ratio, the Tribunal concluded that procedural infirmity deprived the assessee of fair notice; accordingly the penalty orders framed by the AO under s.271(1)(c) were held invalid and were quashed, with the appeal allowed in favour of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.