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 whether the sale proceeds of residential units should be treated as capital gains or business receipts. It was found that the transactions were part of a land transfer for development by a builder, not a business activity by the assessee. The long-term capital gain from the land transfer was eligible for exemption u/s 54F as the proceeds were reinvested in residential flats. Flats sold within 36 months attracted short-term capital gain, while those held longer qualified for long-term capital gain benefit u/s 54. The Tribunal upheld the decision that the transactions were capital gains, not business receipts, and dismissed the revenue's appeals. Additionally, the valuation report supported the assessee's investment in constructing Rupam Tower, showing no basis for the excessive addition by the Assessing Officer, leading to the deletion of the alleged unaccounted investment.
The Appellate Tribunal considered whether the sale proceeds of residential units should be treated as capital gains or business receipts. It was found that the transactions were part of a land transfer for development by a builder, not a business activity by the assessee. The long-term capital gain from the land transfer was eligible for exemption u/s 54F as the proceeds were reinvested in residential flats. Flats sold within 36 months attracted short-term capital gain, while those held longer qualified for long-term capital gain benefit u/s 54. The Tribunal upheld the decision that the transactions were capital gains, not business receipts, and dismissed the revenue's appeals. Additionally, the valuation report supported the assessee's investment in constructing Rupam Tower, showing no basis for the excessive addition by the Assessing Officer, leading to the deletion of the alleged unaccounted investment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.