Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 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.