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 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96536 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 40A(2)(b) - Allegation of excessive and unreasonable salary paid to the relative of partner - The assessing officer questioned the legitimacy of this payment due to the absence of a filed income tax return by the recipient and the perceived collusive nature of the transaction. - sham transaction designed to evade tax. - The Appellate Tribunal found that the salary payment was legitimate and incurred for business purposes. The Tribunal noted that the assessing officer failed to prove that the salary was excessive or unreasonable, a prerequisite for invoking Section 40A. Additionally, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's arguments regarding the separate nature of the salary and loan transactions.
Addition u/s 40A(2)(b) - Allegation of excessive and unreasonable salary paid to the relative of partner - The assessing officer questioned the legitimacy of this payment due to the absence of a filed income tax return by the recipient and the perceived collusive nature of the transaction. - sham transaction designed to evade tax. - The Appellate Tribunal found that the salary payment was legitimate and incurred for business purposes. The Tribunal noted that the assessing officer failed to prove that the salary was excessive or unreasonable, a prerequisite for invoking Section 40A. Additionally, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's arguments regarding the separate nature of the salary and loan transactions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.