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" ?
In trading cases involving alleged bogus purchases, accepted sales and bank-channel payments support a restricted profit estimate rather than full deletion of the addition, but the assessee still bears the primary burden to explain the purchases and source of payment. The ITAT noted that the sales were accepted and could not have been achieved without purchases, yet the assessee had not fully proved genuineness of the impugned transactions. It held that applying the gross profit rate from a later year was excessive because earlier years showed much lower margins and a different business model, so profit on the disputed transactions was fairly estimated at 1%, with the additions restricted accordingly.
In trading cases involving alleged bogus purchases, accepted sales and bank-channel payments support a restricted profit estimate rather than full deletion of the addition, but the assessee still bears the primary burden to explain the purchases and source of payment. The ITAT noted that the sales were accepted and could not have been achieved without purchases, yet the assessee had not fully proved genuineness of the impugned transactions. It held that applying the gross profit rate from a later year was excessive because earlier years showed much lower margins and a different business model, so profit on the disputed transactions was fairly estimated at 1%, with the additions restricted accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.