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" ?
The HC held that revision under section 264 is maintainable against a penalty order under section 270A even if the order is otherwise appealable, because the bar in section 264(4) is limited to the specific situations stated there. The Principal Commissioner therefore wrongly declined to examine the revision on merits. On the penalty, the Court found no under-reported income where the PF/ESI disallowance had already been added in the section 143(1)(a) intimation and the assessment merely repeated the same addition; the statutory ingredients of section 270A were not met. The assessee also made full disclosure and advanced a bona fide claim, attracting the section 270A(6)(a) exception. The revisional and penalty orders were quashed.
The HC held that revision under section 264 is maintainable against a penalty order under section 270A even if the order is otherwise appealable, because the bar in section 264(4) is limited to the specific situations stated there. The Principal Commissioner therefore wrongly declined to examine the revision on merits. On the penalty, the Court found no under-reported income where the PF/ESI disallowance had already been added in the section 143(1)(a) intimation and the assessment merely repeated the same addition; the statutory ingredients of section 270A were not met. The assessee also made full disclosure and advanced a bona fide claim, attracting the section 270A(6)(a) exception. The revisional and penalty orders were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.