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 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT affirmed deletion of penalty under s.271(1)(c), holding that acceptance of a s.35D deduction in an initial year, as upheld by SC precedent, precludes denial in subsequent years and that an unsustainable tax position does not ipso facto constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal applied the principle that penal liability under s.271(1)(c) requires factual proof of incorrect, erroneous or false particulars in the return, not merely an arguable or unsuccessful claim of deduction. On this basis the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was upheld and the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
ITAT affirmed deletion of penalty under s.271(1)(c), holding that acceptance of a s.35D deduction in an initial year, as upheld by SC precedent, precludes denial in subsequent years and that an unsustainable tax position does not ipso facto constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal applied the principle that penal liability under s.271(1)(c) requires factual proof of incorrect, erroneous or false particulars in the return, not merely an arguable or unsuccessful claim of deduction. On this basis the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was upheld and the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.