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 - bogus LTCG on shares - onus to prove - - Despite opportunities provided, the assessee company failed to adequately explain the nature and source of the funds received from the share subscriber companies. This failure to discharge the burden of proof led the A.O. to conclude that the transactions were suspicious. - The assessee company argued that it merely acted as a facilitator for transferring funds to the real beneficiary. However, this contention was not accepted by the ITAT as there was insufficient evidence to prove that the funds were indeed transferred for legitimate purposes. Argument of double taxation also not find favor of the tribunal - Additions confirmed by the tribunal.
Addition u/s 68 - bogus LTCG on shares - onus to prove - - Despite opportunities provided, the assessee company failed to adequately explain the nature and source of the funds received from the share subscriber companies. This failure to discharge the burden of proof led the A.O. to conclude that the transactions were suspicious. - The assessee company argued that it merely acted as a facilitator for transferring funds to the real beneficiary. However, this contention was not accepted by the ITAT as there was insufficient evidence to prove that the funds were indeed transferred for legitimate purposes. Argument of double taxation also not find favor of the tribunal - Additions confirmed by the tribunal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.