Regulatory consolidation for investment advisers: SEBI issues master circular consolidating guidance and prescribing compliance, reporting, fees and s...
Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
Penalty under the tax provision for furnishing inaccurate particulars was contested where the assessee claimed interest under capitalisation rather than revenue deduction. Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court principle that an incorrect claim does not automatically constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars, and observed the assessing officers disallowance on capitalisation had attained finality. Subsequent treatment by the assesseecapitalising interest in a later yearfurther supported absence of deliberate inaccuracy. Consequently the appellate authority concluded the penalty was unsustainable and allowed the assessees grounds, setting aside the confirmed levy of penalty.
Penalty under the tax provision for furnishing inaccurate particulars was contested where the assessee claimed interest under capitalisation rather than revenue deduction. Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court principle that an incorrect claim does not automatically constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars, and observed the assessing officers disallowance on capitalisation had attained finality. Subsequent treatment by the assesseecapitalising interest in a later yearfurther supported absence of deliberate inaccuracy. Consequently the appellate authority concluded the penalty was unsustainable and allowed the assessees grounds, setting aside the confirmed levy of penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.