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 section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 were vitiated because the show-cause notice failed to specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) was invoked, having referenced multiple charges at different stages without striking out inapplicable limbs. The Tribunal followed binding High Court and Supreme Court precedents rejecting notices in a standard format that do not clearly communicate the specific charge sought to be imposed. Consequentially, the penalty assessment was set aside as invalid for defective notice; any further penalty action must be preceded by a valid, specific notice compliant with the requirements of section 274 and relevant judicial decisions.
The ITAT held that penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 were vitiated because the show-cause notice failed to specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) was invoked, having referenced multiple charges at different stages without striking out inapplicable limbs. The Tribunal followed binding High Court and Supreme Court precedents rejecting notices in a standard format that do not clearly communicate the specific charge sought to be imposed. Consequentially, the penalty assessment was set aside as invalid for defective notice; any further penalty action must be preceded by a valid, specific notice compliant with the requirements of section 274 and relevant judicial decisions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.