Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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.