Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
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.