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 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96536 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 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.