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...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Indexation on a capital asset received in amalgamation was held to run from FY 2008-09 because the township had already been constructed and let out by the amalgamating company, with rental income taxed from that year; the tax-neutral transfer under the scheme did not shift the holding period to the later amalgamation order or occupancy certificate. The Tribunal also upheld the claimed short-term capital loss on sale of AIF units to a subsidiary, finding both acquisition and sale valuations followed the NAV method, the fall in value was explained by decline in underlying investments, and a related-party sale is not a colourable device without evidence of tax avoidance. Both revenue appeals were dismissed.
Indexation on a capital asset received in amalgamation was held to run from FY 2008-09 because the township had already been constructed and let out by the amalgamating company, with rental income taxed from that year; the tax-neutral transfer under the scheme did not shift the holding period to the later amalgamation order or occupancy certificate. The Tribunal also upheld the claimed short-term capital loss on sale of AIF units to a subsidiary, finding both acquisition and sale valuations followed the NAV method, the fall in value was explained by decline in underlying investments, and a related-party sale is not a colourable device without evidence of tax avoidance. Both revenue appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
