Reopening Assessments invalid where satisfaction and jurisdictional approval are absent for third party seized material, leading to quashing of assess...
Benami property exclusion from the insolvency estate: Benami Act proceedings preclude IBC tribunals from reopening attachments or treating such assets...
Exclusion of limitation period: pandemic suspension plus debtor acknowledgement can extend limitation, requiring fresh factfinding on guarantee invoca...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5941 to 5960 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" ?
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.