Condonation of Delay: directoral disputes and pending company proceedings can constitute reasonable cause, allowing a belated return to be treated as ...
Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 upheld; faceless assessments subject to revision when AO fails requisite enquiries, remitted for fresh asse...
Limited scope of processing under section 143(1): enhancement without show cause is unsustainable; remand for residency, taxation and TDS verification...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5441 to 5460 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
In transfer pricing under TNMM, the ITAT treated regular foreign exchange gain as operating income, held that common Delhi and Dehradun expenses had to be allocated on gross profit margins rather than turnover, and applied broad functional comparability to accept the five comparables; it also rejected exclusion of Gontermann Pieper as a persistent loss-maker because it had not suffered losses for three consecutive years. The transfer pricing adjustment was therefore restored to the TPO/AO for recomputation on those terms. On interest deduction, the ITAT applied CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody and allowed interest expenditure against interest income, holding that absence of dividend from the subsidiary investment did not justify disallowance. The interest disallowance was deleted.
In transfer pricing under TNMM, the ITAT treated regular foreign exchange gain as operating income, held that common Delhi and Dehradun expenses had to be allocated on gross profit margins rather than turnover, and applied broad functional comparability to accept the five comparables; it also rejected exclusion of Gontermann Pieper as a persistent loss-maker because it had not suffered losses for three consecutive years. The transfer pricing adjustment was therefore restored to the TPO/AO for recomputation on those terms. On interest deduction, the ITAT applied CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody and allowed interest expenditure against interest income, holding that absence of dividend from the subsidiary investment did not justify disallowance. The interest disallowance was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.