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" ?
Addition u/s 68 - Share premium - Transaction in the nature of Capital Account - violation of the provision of Section 78(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 - The High court found in favor of the appellant, stating that the share premium received on the issuance of shares is on capital account and does not constitute income. Even if there were violations of Section 78 of the Companies Act, 1956, it would not turn the share premium amount into a revenue receipt. The Assessing Officers failed to understand the difference between utilization of funds and the creation of share premium account in the books of accounts. - Accordingly, the additions so made by AO deleted.
Addition u/s 68 - Share premium - Transaction in the nature of Capital Account - violation of the provision of Section 78(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 - The High court found in favor of the appellant, stating that the share premium received on the issuance of shares is on capital account and does not constitute income. Even if there were violations of Section 78 of the Companies Act, 1956, it would not turn the share premium amount into a revenue receipt. The Assessing Officers failed to understand the difference between utilization of funds and the creation of share premium account in the books of accounts. - Accordingly, the additions so made by AO deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.