Transfer pricing comparability requires functional alignment, reliable financial data, and careful review of working capital and receivables adjustmen...
Transfer pricing rules require benchmarking corporate guarantees and associated-enterprise advances, while invalid domestic-transaction adjustments ca...
Prospective sugar export prohibition required registered letters of credit; private contracts and export quotas created no enforceable continuation ri...
Retroactive interim-moratorium exclusion permits protective asset disclosure and preservation measures against personal guarantors pending arbitration...
The ITAT Ahmedabad considered a case involving exemption u/s 11 for a trust with a belatedly filed income return. The tribunal held that the trust, registered u/s 12AA, was eligible for deduction as a charitable trust. It noted the amendment to Section 139(4) post the Finance Act, 2016, allowing filing within one year from the end of the relevant assessment year. The tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s interpretation of the due date. The trust mistakenly reported an amount under the wrong section in the return, but as the filed return was valid and processed u/s 143(1), the CIT(A)'s rejection was deemed unjust. The tribunal also addressed the late filing of form 10B, citing the proviso to section 143(1)(a) and a previous decision condoning such delays. Following the precedent, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, deleted the addition made, and allowed the exemption u/s 11, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee.
The ITAT Ahmedabad considered a case involving exemption u/s 11 for a trust with a belatedly filed income return. The tribunal held that the trust, registered u/s 12AA, was eligible for deduction as a charitable trust. It noted the amendment to Section 139(4) post the Finance Act, 2016, allowing filing within one year from the end of the relevant assessment year. The tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s interpretation of the due date. The trust mistakenly reported an amount under the wrong section in the return, but as the filed return was valid and processed u/s 143(1), the CIT(A)'s rejection was deemed unjust. The tribunal also addressed the late filing of form 10B, citing the proviso to section 143(1)(a) and a previous decision condoning such delays. Following the precedent, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, deleted the addition made, and allowed the exemption u/s 11, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
