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" ?
Penalty under s. 271(1)(c) read with s. 274 was challenged on the ground that the notice did not specify whether the charge was "concealment of income" or "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." Since penalty proceedings are penal in nature, the charge must be unequivocal and unambiguous; the AO is required to strike off the inapplicable limb and cannot club both limbs in the notice. As the AO failed to strike off either limb and left the notice vague, the penalty proceedings were held invalid and the penalty was quashed, granting relief to the taxpayer. - ITAT
Penalty under s. 271(1)(c) read with s. 274 was challenged on the ground that the notice did not specify whether the charge was "concealment of income" or "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." Since penalty proceedings are penal in nature, the charge must be unequivocal and unambiguous; the AO is required to strike off the inapplicable limb and cannot club both limbs in the notice. As the AO failed to strike off either limb and left the notice vague, the penalty proceedings were held invalid and the penalty was quashed, granting relief to the taxpayer. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.