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" ?
Validity of revision u/s 263 regarding eligibility for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) on interest income from deposits with a cooperative bank was examined. It was held that the Assessing Officer did not conduct necessary inquiry or apply mind to verify if the interest income claimed for deduction was earned from deposits with a cooperative bank, a prerequisite for claiming deduction u/s 80P(2)(d). The Commissioner rightly assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 as the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests due to lack of verification. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order setting aside the assessment for fresh adjudication after providing opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal rejected contentions regarding lack of inquiry by the Commissioner, non-application of mind to assessee's submissions, and jurisdictional defects arising from earlier years' assessments.
Validity of revision u/s 263 regarding eligibility for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) on interest income from deposits with a cooperative bank was examined. It was held that the Assessing Officer did not conduct necessary inquiry or apply mind to verify if the interest income claimed for deduction was earned from deposits with a cooperative bank, a prerequisite for claiming deduction u/s 80P(2)(d). The Commissioner rightly assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 as the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests due to lack of verification. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order setting aside the assessment for fresh adjudication after providing opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal rejected contentions regarding lack of inquiry by the Commissioner, non-application of mind to assessee's submissions, and jurisdictional defects arising from earlier years' assessments.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
