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 High Court addressed the issue of exemption u/s 10(25)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer denied the exemption to the assessee fund, claiming it lost recognition without a formal order of withdrawal by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The Court held that as long as the approval u/s 10(25)(iii) and rules remained valid, the Assessing Officer must grant exemption. The Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to deny exemption based on recognition loss. The power to withdraw approval lies with the competent authority as per the rules. The High Court set aside the ITAT's order, ruling in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of upholding approved exemptions and maintaining judicial discipline.
The High Court addressed the issue of exemption u/s 10(25)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer denied the exemption to the assessee fund, claiming it lost recognition without a formal order of withdrawal by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The Court held that as long as the approval u/s 10(25)(iii) and rules remained valid, the Assessing Officer must grant exemption. The Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to deny exemption based on recognition loss. The power to withdraw approval lies with the competent authority as per the rules. The High Court set aside the ITAT's order, ruling in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of upholding approved exemptions and maintaining judicial discipline.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
