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" ?
Unexplained investment in immovable property under section 69 was held explained where the assessee produced the sale deed, the father's bank statement, and proof of direct payment to the seller through banking channels. The Tribunal held that this discharged the primary onus; the burden then shifted to the Revenue to bring adverse material, which it did not. Mere suspicion about antecedent credits in the father's account was insufficient, and the absence of a formal gift deed did not by itself make the investment unexplained in a family transaction. The addition was deleted in full.
Unexplained investment in immovable property under section 69 was held explained where the assessee produced the sale deed, the father's bank statement, and proof of direct payment to the seller through banking channels. The Tribunal held that this discharged the primary onus; the burden then shifted to the Revenue to bring adverse material, which it did not. Mere suspicion about antecedent credits in the father's account was insufficient, and the absence of a formal gift deed did not by itself make the investment unexplained in a family transaction. The addition was deleted in full.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.