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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
Penalty under section 271D was quashed because the assessment order did not record the Assessing Officer's satisfaction that the assessee had committed a contravention attracting that penalty. The Tribunal held that such recorded satisfaction in the body of the assessment order is a jurisdictional prerequisite for valid initiation of penalty proceedings; a mere reference to penalty under section 271(1)(c) was insufficient. In the absence of that foundation, the Joint Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to proceed, the penalty order was invalid, and the appellate order sustaining it was set aside.
Penalty under section 271D was quashed because the assessment order did not record the Assessing Officer's satisfaction that the assessee had committed a contravention attracting that penalty. The Tribunal held that such recorded satisfaction in the body of the assessment order is a jurisdictional prerequisite for valid initiation of penalty proceedings; a mere reference to penalty under section 271(1)(c) was insufficient. In the absence of that foundation, the Joint Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to proceed, the penalty order was invalid, and the appellate order sustaining it was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
