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 section 271AAB was contested on the ground that the search team failed to examine or ascertain the source of cash and jewellery and did not inform searched persons of the disclosure obligation under section 132(4); the failure of authorised officers to question and elicit disclosures was held determinative of the penalty rate, leading to the conclusion that the lesser statutory penalty rate should apply. The assessing officer was directed to recompute the penalty at the lower rate and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Penalty under section 271AAB was contested on the ground that the search team failed to examine or ascertain the source of cash and jewellery and did not inform searched persons of the disclosure obligation under section 132(4); the failure of authorised officers to question and elicit disclosures was held determinative of the penalty rate, leading to the conclusion that the lesser statutory penalty rate should apply. The assessing officer was directed to recompute the penalty at the lower rate and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.