Tariff classification determines GST schedule and rate; beverages in Schedule III attract the higher rate, tea extracts and syrups in Schedule I attra...
Fraudulent trading requires cogent evidence of intent to defraud; ordinary-course payments protected, except post-insolvency withdrawals must be resto...
Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Once the jurisdictional High Court had admitted the assessee's quantum appeal on substantial questions of law concerning the transfer pricing addition, the underlying addition had not attained finality and remained debatable. In that situation, the Tribunal applied the principle that a debatable claim does not by itself establish concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was therefore held not leviable, and the deletion of penalty was upheld.
Once the jurisdictional High Court had admitted the assessee's quantum appeal on substantial questions of law concerning the transfer pricing addition, the underlying addition had not attained finality and remained debatable. In that situation, the Tribunal applied the principle that a debatable claim does not by itself establish concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was therefore held not leviable, and the deletion of penalty was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
