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 of Assessee X and deleted the penalty imposed u/s 271D. The AO had levied penalty on the ground that Assessee X received Rs. 20 lakhs in cash during FY 2008-09, allegedly in contravention of s.269SS by accepting a cash loan or deposit exceeding Rs. 20,000. ITAT accepted the explanation that the amount belonged to Assessee X's father, an agriculturist without a bank account, who had received earnest money from a land transaction and temporarily parked the funds in the assessee's bank account for safety. As the Revenue failed to rebut this explanation and no genuine loan or deposit transaction was proved, ITAT held that penalty u/s 271D was not exigible.
ITAT allowed the appeal of Assessee X and deleted the penalty imposed u/s 271D. The AO had levied penalty on the ground that Assessee X received Rs. 20 lakhs in cash during FY 2008-09, allegedly in contravention of s.269SS by accepting a cash loan or deposit exceeding Rs. 20,000. ITAT accepted the explanation that the amount belonged to Assessee X's father, an agriculturist without a bank account, who had received earnest money from a land transaction and temporarily parked the funds in the assessee's bank account for safety. As the Revenue failed to rebut this explanation and no genuine loan or deposit transaction was proved, ITAT held that penalty u/s 271D was not exigible.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.