Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3221 to 3240 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was held inapplicable where an assessee disclosed the Hong Kong branch income and claimed treaty relief on the basis of a plausible legal interpretation. The disallowance resulted from a pure error of law because the India-China DTAA did not extend to Hong Kong at the relevant time, but the Department failed to prove concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Court held that Dharmendra Textile Processors did not make penalty automatic on every disallowance; the statutory preconditions for penalty must still be satisfied. The penalty deletion was upheld and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was held inapplicable where an assessee disclosed the Hong Kong branch income and claimed treaty relief on the basis of a plausible legal interpretation. The disallowance resulted from a pure error of law because the India-China DTAA did not extend to Hong Kong at the relevant time, but the Department failed to prove concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Court held that Dharmendra Textile Processors did not make penalty automatic on every disallowance; the statutory preconditions for penalty must still be satisfied. The penalty deletion was upheld and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
