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.270A was levied for alleged misreporting, on the footing that purchase returns were not properly accounted and excess purchases were added to income. The tribunal held that the discrepancy was explained as arising from purchase returns and there was no misrepresentation or suppression of facts within s.270A(9)(a); mere non-acceptance of the explanation and consequent addition did not convert the case into misreporting. The assessee's decision not to further contest the addition and to pay tax while seeking immunity under s.270AA also did not establish misreporting. Accordingly, the penalty could not be sustained and was deleted; the appeal was allowed. - ITAT
Penalty under s.270A was levied for alleged misreporting, on the footing that purchase returns were not properly accounted and excess purchases were added to income. The tribunal held that the discrepancy was explained as arising from purchase returns and there was no misrepresentation or suppression of facts within s.270A(9)(a); mere non-acceptance of the explanation and consequent addition did not convert the case into misreporting. The assessee's decision not to further contest the addition and to pay tax while seeking immunity under s.270AA also did not establish misreporting. Accordingly, the penalty could not be sustained and was deleted; the appeal was allowed. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.