Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Shares allotted at premium based on valuation report following DCF method. AO rejected report without pointing errors. ITAT held valuation not an exact science, cannot be done with arithmetic precision. Shares subscribed by outside investor, a reputed corporate group, not a related party. Hence, no infirmity in CIT(A) order deleting addition u/s 56(2)(viib). Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) on interest expenditure deleted by CIT(A) as zero coupon debentures were consideration for transfer of assets, not investment. ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s view. Interest-free deposit given had sufficient own funds, no disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) warranted as per Bombay High Court ruling. Assessee's appeal allowed on this issue.
Shares allotted at premium based on valuation report following DCF method. AO rejected report without pointing errors. ITAT held valuation not an exact science, cannot be done with arithmetic precision. Shares subscribed by outside investor, a reputed corporate group, not a related party. Hence, no infirmity in CIT(A) order deleting addition u/s 56(2)(viib). Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) on interest expenditure deleted by CIT(A) as zero coupon debentures were consideration for transfer of assets, not investment. ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s view. Interest-free deposit given had sufficient own funds, no disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) warranted as per Bombay High Court ruling. Assessee's appeal allowed on this issue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
