Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Income recognition - advances received from clients - AO observed that “out of pocket expenses” had been exclusively kept out of the books and on reimbursement of the sum by the clients to the assessee, it was the duty of the assessee to route the same through the profit and loss account and in the absence of such course being taken, AO added the same amount to the total income of the assessee - The High Court held that, CIT(A) and ITAT have rightly concluded that the assessee received these advances in a fiduciary capacity for specific purposes, not as income. - It was not trading receipt. Therefore, the respondent/assessee was not under any legal obligation to show it as his receipts of money from the clients. The High court found no merit in the Revenue's reliance on Section 145, noting no factual basis indicating that the conditions of Section 145(3) were met.
Income recognition - advances received from clients - AO observed that “out of pocket expenses” had been exclusively kept out of the books and on reimbursement of the sum by the clients to the assessee, it was the duty of the assessee to route the same through the profit and loss account and in the absence of such course being taken, AO added the same amount to the total income of the assessee - The High Court held that, CIT(A) and ITAT have rightly concluded that the assessee received these advances in a fiduciary capacity for specific purposes, not as income. - It was not trading receipt. Therefore, the respondent/assessee was not under any legal obligation to show it as his receipts of money from the clients. The High court found no merit in the Revenue's reliance on Section 145, noting no factual basis indicating that the conditions of Section 145(3) were met.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
