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 Appellate Tribunal considered the disallowance of advance written off as an expense u/s 36(2). The Assessing Officer argued it should be allowable u/s 37 due to a direct nexus with the assessee's business. The issue was whether the amount given up represented a loss of capital or revenue expenditure. Citing CIT vs. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd, the Tribunal held that as there was no capital investment in the advances, the loss was on the revenue side and deductible. Referring to Appollo Tyres Ltd, it was established that business advances for revenue items are allowable u/s 37. As the amount was given in the course of business, it was allowed to be written off u/s 37. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Appellate Tribunal considered the disallowance of advance written off as an expense u/s 36(2). The Assessing Officer argued it should be allowable u/s 37 due to a direct nexus with the assessee's business. The issue was whether the amount given up represented a loss of capital or revenue expenditure. Citing CIT vs. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd, the Tribunal held that as there was no capital investment in the advances, the loss was on the revenue side and deductible. Referring to Appollo Tyres Ltd, it was established that business advances for revenue items are allowable u/s 37. As the amount was given in the course of business, it was allowed to be written off u/s 37. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.