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 addressed the issue of addition u/s 68 for alleged bogus long-term capital gain. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's reliance on a general investigation report and statements did not directly implicate the assessee or her broker in any wrongdoing. The Tribunal noted that the department did not link the assessee or her broker to entities identified by SEBI for price manipulation. The AO's reliance on the SEBI order and the suspension of trading in the scrip of M/s. Sunrise was deemed irrelevant. Citing a precedent, the Tribunal held that the transactions were genuine, and the assessee's claim for exemption u/s 10(38) was allowed. The decision favored the assessee.
The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of addition u/s 68 for alleged bogus long-term capital gain. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's reliance on a general investigation report and statements did not directly implicate the assessee or her broker in any wrongdoing. The Tribunal noted that the department did not link the assessee or her broker to entities identified by SEBI for price manipulation. The AO's reliance on the SEBI order and the suspension of trading in the scrip of M/s. Sunrise was deemed irrelevant. Citing a precedent, the Tribunal held that the transactions were genuine, and the assessee's claim for exemption u/s 10(38) was allowed. The decision favored the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.