Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 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.