Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
Embezzlement losses in charitable institutions remain allowable when misappropriation is established, irrecoverable, and not a specified-person benefi...
National long-distance undertaking status supports deduction where separately licensed infrastructure, resources, revenue, and expenditure establish c...
Agency reimbursement income follows contractual deposit-liability computation, while pending deposit collections do not constitute deemed-dividend loa...
Page of 4883
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 97649 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4883 
