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" ?
ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) directing a fresh, reasoned adjudication. The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271AAB can be levied only on quantified "undisclosed income" as defined in the Explanation, and observed the AO failed to identify entries, transactions or seized documents forming the basis of any undisclosed income. CIT(A) erred by upholding the penalty without a speaking order addressing computation and reasons as required by law. The matter is remitted for the CIT(A) to consider the assessee's submissions, ascertain and quantify any undisclosed income on the basis of seized documents, and pass a detailed speaking order.
ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) directing a fresh, reasoned adjudication. The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271AAB can be levied only on quantified "undisclosed income" as defined in the Explanation, and observed the AO failed to identify entries, transactions or seized documents forming the basis of any undisclosed income. CIT(A) erred by upholding the penalty without a speaking order addressing computation and reasons as required by law. The matter is remitted for the CIT(A) to consider the assessee's submissions, ascertain and quantify any undisclosed income on the basis of seized documents, and pass a detailed speaking order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.