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 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.