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 allowed the appeal and set aside penalty under s.271(1)(c), holding that disclosure of additional income during survey, subsequently reflected in the return filed under s.139(1) and in the return under s.153A and accepted by the AO, does not constitute concealment as a matter of law. The Tribunal applied the strict construction applicable to penal provisions and held the decisive test is whether the return contains complete particulars of income. Absent omission in the return and independent corroborative evidence of concealment, addition or penalty based solely on a survey disclosure (a loose paper) is unsustainable. The penalty was therefore quashed.
ITAT allowed the appeal and set aside penalty under s.271(1)(c), holding that disclosure of additional income during survey, subsequently reflected in the return filed under s.139(1) and in the return under s.153A and accepted by the AO, does not constitute concealment as a matter of law. The Tribunal applied the strict construction applicable to penal provisions and held the decisive test is whether the return contains complete particulars of income. Absent omission in the return and independent corroborative evidence of concealment, addition or penalty based solely on a survey disclosure (a loose paper) is unsustainable. The penalty was therefore quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.