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...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
ITAT held that disallowance of depreciation on a disclosed block...
Depreciation and routine compliance expenses disallowance did not prove inaccurate particulars or misreporting; penalty sustained only on foreign travel.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
ITAT held that disallowance of depreciation on a disclosed block of assets did not, by itself, establish furnishing of inaccurate particulars or misreporting, because the claim was grounded in the books and the issue was one of allowability. Penalty was therefore deleted on depreciation, but sustained for foreign travelling expenses in A.Y. 2015-16 because no business activity or nexus was shown. For A.Ys. 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, penalties under section 271(1)(c) and section 270A were deleted, as routine compliance and administrative expenses, and a write-off, were not shown to be fictitious, bogus or based on suppressed facts; ad hoc or inadequate substantiation disallowed in quantum was insufficient to prove concealment.
ITAT held that disallowance of depreciation on a disclosed block of assets did not, by itself, establish furnishing of inaccurate particulars or misreporting, because the claim was grounded in the books and the issue was one of allowability. Penalty was therefore deleted on depreciation, but sustained for foreign travelling expenses in A.Y. 2015-16 because no business activity or nexus was shown. For A.Ys. 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, penalties under section 271(1)(c) and section 270A were deleted, as routine compliance and administrative expenses, and a write-off, were not shown to be fictitious, bogus or based on suppressed facts; ad hoc or inadequate substantiation disallowed in quantum was insufficient to prove concealment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
