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" ?
Unexplained cash credit being share capital and premium u/s 68 - director of the subscriber company did not appear in response to the summons issued u/s 131 - The Tribunal noted that the burden of proof initially lay with the appellant to establish the genuineness of the transaction, the identity of the shareholders, and their creditworthiness. However, once the appellant provided the necessary documents, the burden shifted to the Assessing Officer to conduct a proper inquiry. Since the Assessing Officer failed to do so and did not justify the addition with sufficient reasoning, the Tribunal concluded that the addition was not justified.
Unexplained cash credit being share capital and premium u/s 68 - director of the subscriber company did not appear in response to the summons issued u/s 131 - The Tribunal noted that the burden of proof initially lay with the appellant to establish the genuineness of the transaction, the identity of the shareholders, and their creditworthiness. However, once the appellant provided the necessary documents, the burden shifted to the Assessing Officer to conduct a proper inquiry. Since the Assessing Officer failed to do so and did not justify the addition with sufficient reasoning, the Tribunal concluded that the addition was not justified.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
