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 set aside the penalty imposed under s.271(1)(c), holding that recharacterisation of a loan as deemed dividend under s.2(22)(e) and a s.40A(3) disallowance did not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars where the relevant facts were disclosed in audited financials and during assessment proceedings and pre-existing judicial decisions supported the assessee's position. The Tribunal noted that reliance on authoritative decisions available before the assessment and penalty orders justified the assessee's stance, and that mere disallowance under s.40A(3) did not establish culpable inaccuracy. Penalty under s.271(1)(c) deleted and the assessee's appeal allowed.
The ITAT set aside the penalty imposed under s.271(1)(c), holding that recharacterisation of a loan as deemed dividend under s.2(22)(e) and a s.40A(3) disallowance did not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars where the relevant facts were disclosed in audited financials and during assessment proceedings and pre-existing judicial decisions supported the assessee's position. The Tribunal noted that reliance on authoritative decisions available before the assessment and penalty orders justified the assessee's stance, and that mere disallowance under s.40A(3) did not establish culpable inaccuracy. Penalty under s.271(1)(c) deleted and the assessee's appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.