Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
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.