Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
501 to 520 of 96365 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 271C was held unsustainable where the order was passed beyond the six-month limit prescribed by section 275(1)(c), as fiscal limitation provisions must be strictly applied and penalty cannot be imposed after expiry of that period. The tribunal also noted that the alleged default arose from a disallowance treated as interest-related expenditure, yet the reference for penalty was made after an inordinate 18-month delay. That delay was found to defeat the object of section 275(1)(c), and the penalty order, as well as the appellate affirmation, was set aside and the penalty deleted.
Penalty under section 271C was held unsustainable where the order was passed beyond the six-month limit prescribed by section 275(1)(c), as fiscal limitation provisions must be strictly applied and penalty cannot be imposed after expiry of that period. The tribunal also noted that the alleged default arose from a disallowance treated as interest-related expenditure, yet the reference for penalty was made after an inordinate 18-month delay. That delay was found to defeat the object of section 275(1)(c), and the penalty order, as well as the appellate affirmation, was set aside and the penalty deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.