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...
Donor-directed corpus contributions received by an approved...
Donor-directed corpus contributions retain capital character despite exemption claims under section 10(23C)(vi), preventing their treatment as taxable revenue.
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
Donor-directed corpus contributions received by an approved educational institution retain their corpus character where donors specifically earmark them, even when exemption is claimed under section 10(23C)(vi) rather than section 11. Such contributions are materially distinct from ordinary voluntary receipts available for application towards institutional objects. The absence of identically worded corpus provisions in section 10(23C)(vi) during the relevant year does not by itself recharacterise genuine corpus receipts as taxable revenue, absent material showing that the corpus designation is a facade. Accordingly, the addition for these corpus contributions was deleted.
Donor-directed corpus contributions received by an approved educational institution retain their corpus character where donors specifically earmark them, even when exemption is claimed under section 10(23C)(vi) rather than section 11. Such contributions are materially distinct from ordinary voluntary receipts available for application towards institutional objects. The absence of identically worded corpus provisions in section 10(23C)(vi) during the relevant year does not by itself recharacterise genuine corpus receipts as taxable revenue, absent material showing that the corpus designation is a facade. Accordingly, the addition for these corpus contributions was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
