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 held that the revised return operated as a substitution for the original return and, as the AO assessed income identical to the revised return and accepted the assessee's explanations, there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars; accordingly penalty under s.271(1)(c) could not be levied. The tribunal reversed the penalty order, finding that once tax was recovered on the revised return and no material demonstrated falsehood or suppression in the particulars furnished, the statutory requirement for imposing penalty was not satisfied. Appeal allowed and penalty set aside.
ITAT held that the revised return operated as a substitution for the original return and, as the AO assessed income identical to the revised return and accepted the assessee's explanations, there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars; accordingly penalty under s.271(1)(c) could not be levied. The tribunal reversed the penalty order, finding that once tax was recovered on the revised return and no material demonstrated falsehood or suppression in the particulars furnished, the statutory requirement for imposing penalty was not satisfied. Appeal allowed and penalty set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.