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" ?
The case involved a dispute over the taxability of reimbursement of salary expenses of seconded employees as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) and levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) or 270A. The Appellate Tribunal found that the Assessee had a bonafide belief regarding the taxability of the receipts and eventually offered them for taxation. The Tribunal referred to a judgment stating that such reimbursements are not liable to tax deduction at source. The Assessee had disclosed the receipts in Form 3CB and provided explanations to lower authorities. The Tribunal held that there was no concealment of income and no penalty should be levied u/s 271(1)(c) or 270A. The penalty was deleted in favor of the Assessee.
The case involved a dispute over the taxability of reimbursement of salary expenses of seconded employees as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) and levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) or 270A. The Appellate Tribunal found that the Assessee had a bonafide belief regarding the taxability of the receipts and eventually offered them for taxation. The Tribunal referred to a judgment stating that such reimbursements are not liable to tax deduction at source. The Assessee had disclosed the receipts in Form 3CB and provided explanations to lower authorities. The Tribunal held that there was no concealment of income and no penalty should be levied u/s 271(1)(c) or 270A. The penalty was deleted in favor of the Assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.