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 legality of additions based on a diary seized from a third party. The Tribunal held that the presumption u/s 132(4A) of the Act applies to the person in possession of incriminating material and cannot be extended to a third party without corroborative evidence against the assessee. The failure to provide cross-examination opportunity to the assessee based on third party statements led to the deletion of the addition. The Tribunal also ruled in favor of the assessee regarding unexplained expenses on a mobile purchase and investments in vehicles. Addition of interest income and unexplained investments were deleted due to lack of supporting evidence. The Tribunal further deleted additions related to unexplained expenditure on spectacles, mobile phones, marriage expenses, and foreign currency purchases. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence and upheld the principles of natural justice throughout its decisions.
The Appellate Tribunal considered the legality of additions based on a diary seized from a third party. The Tribunal held that the presumption u/s 132(4A) of the Act applies to the person in possession of incriminating material and cannot be extended to a third party without corroborative evidence against the assessee. The failure to provide cross-examination opportunity to the assessee based on third party statements led to the deletion of the addition. The Tribunal also ruled in favor of the assessee regarding unexplained expenses on a mobile purchase and investments in vehicles. Addition of interest income and unexplained investments were deleted due to lack of supporting evidence. The Tribunal further deleted additions related to unexplained expenditure on spectacles, mobile phones, marriage expenses, and foreign currency purchases. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence and upheld the principles of natural justice throughout its decisions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.