Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Passenger baggage re-export requires true declaration and cannot be granted indirectly through discretionary redemption of undeclared prohibited goods...
The HC dismissed the challenge, holding that the assessee had disclosed acquisition of the foreign asset in the original returns for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 and in the return filed under s.153A prior to issuance of any penalty notice; books of account corroborated the disclosure. Applying the principle that a return filed under s.153A qualifies as a return for purposes of s.139(1), the tribunal and commissioner correctly concluded there was no failure to disclose and that imposition of the Rs.10 lakh penalty was not warranted on account of a remediable technical formatting defect. No substantial question of law arises.
The HC dismissed the challenge, holding that the assessee had disclosed acquisition of the foreign asset in the original returns for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 and in the return filed under s.153A prior to issuance of any penalty notice; books of account corroborated the disclosure. Applying the principle that a return filed under s.153A qualifies as a return for purposes of s.139(1), the tribunal and commissioner correctly concluded there was no failure to disclose and that imposition of the Rs.10 lakh penalty was not warranted on account of a remediable technical formatting defect. No substantial question of law arises.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
