Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3301 to 3320 of 96257 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 271(1)(c) was examined issue-wise against the assessee's claims in transfer pricing, GDR expenses, MODVAT expenses, foreign exchange derivative losses, PF and ESIC, foreign exchange gain, and TDS reconciliation differences. The Tribunal treated claims already rejected in quantum proceedings, or unsupported by evidence, as lacking bona fide and upheld penalty where the assessee failed to show good faith, due diligence, or full disclosure. It found the foreign exchange derivative loss to be a bona fide business deduction claim and deleted the linked penalty because the underlying quantum disallowance had not survived. The appeal was thus partly allowed for statistical purposes, with one remanded penalty issue for fresh consideration.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was examined issue-wise against the assessee's claims in transfer pricing, GDR expenses, MODVAT expenses, foreign exchange derivative losses, PF and ESIC, foreign exchange gain, and TDS reconciliation differences. The Tribunal treated claims already rejected in quantum proceedings, or unsupported by evidence, as lacking bona fide and upheld penalty where the assessee failed to show good faith, due diligence, or full disclosure. It found the foreign exchange derivative loss to be a bona fide business deduction claim and deleted the linked penalty because the underlying quantum disallowance had not survived. The appeal was thus partly allowed for statistical purposes, with one remanded penalty issue for fresh consideration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
