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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving an addition u/s 56(2)(x)(B) due to the purchase of land property where the stamp value exceeded the consideration paid by more than Rs. 50,000. The assessee argued that the land was purchased as a beneficial owner in the previous year before the incorporation of the company. The Tribunal found that the MOU dated 30-06-2016 was acted upon, establishing that the land was purchased by the promoters on behalf of the company before its incorporation. The conveyance deed executed later was deemed a formality to fulfill the earlier promise/contract. The Tribunal held that the lower authority erred in invoking section 56(2)(x)(B) based on the stamp duty paid on the conveyance deed. The addition was directed to be deleted, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving an addition u/s 56(2)(x)(B) due to the purchase of land property where the stamp value exceeded the consideration paid by more than Rs. 50,000. The assessee argued that the land was purchased as a beneficial owner in the previous year before the incorporation of the company. The Tribunal found that the MOU dated 30-06-2016 was acted upon, establishing that the land was purchased by the promoters on behalf of the company before its incorporation. The conveyance deed executed later was deemed a formality to fulfill the earlier promise/contract. The Tribunal held that the lower authority erred in invoking section 56(2)(x)(B) based on the stamp duty paid on the conveyance deed. The addition was directed to be deleted, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
