Country of Origin Certificates and declared transaction value supported preferential customs exemption where authenticity and invoice prices remained ...
Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
381 to 400 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The text examines imposition of penalty under s.271(1)(c) for bogus purchases and states the controlling legal point that an Assessing Officer must form a clear subjective satisfaction that the assessee consciously concealed particulars of income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars before levying penalty; mere ad hoc estimation of profit in bogus purchases does not suffice. The appellate authority reduced the added profit percentages, and the article concludes that where the AO restricted profit element by estimation without a finding of deliberate concealment or inaccurate particulars, penalty could not be sustained, resulting in a decision favorable to the assessee.
The text examines imposition of penalty under s.271(1)(c) for bogus purchases and states the controlling legal point that an Assessing Officer must form a clear subjective satisfaction that the assessee consciously concealed particulars of income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars before levying penalty; mere ad hoc estimation of profit in bogus purchases does not suffice. The appellate authority reduced the added profit percentages, and the article concludes that where the AO restricted profit element by estimation without a finding of deliberate concealment or inaccurate particulars, penalty could not be sustained, resulting in a decision favorable to the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.