Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
Page of 4790
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
481 to 500 of 95794 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty levied on the assessee under s.271G. The Tribunal held that Rule 10D prescribes thirteen categories of documents to be maintained for international and specified domestic transactions, and an AO initiating penalty proceedings under s.271G must specify which particular document(s) under Rule 10D were not maintained. The penalty order, prepared by the TPO, instead penalised the assessee for failure to benchmark transactions, which does not constitute non-maintenance of documents under s.271G. Consequently, the penalty was untenable and properly deleted.
ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty levied on the assessee under s.271G. The Tribunal held that Rule 10D prescribes thirteen categories of documents to be maintained for international and specified domestic transactions, and an AO initiating penalty proceedings under s.271G must specify which particular document(s) under Rule 10D were not maintained. The penalty order, prepared by the TPO, instead penalised the assessee for failure to benchmark transactions, which does not constitute non-maintenance of documents under s.271G. Consequently, the penalty was untenable and properly deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.