Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
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 4817 
Join Channel 
