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 upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 41(1) of the Income Tax Act. The provisions of Section 41(1) require the assessee to have claimed an allowance or deduction in respect of a loan, expenditure, or trading liability, which was subsequently recovered or remitted. In the present case, the assessee had not claimed any such deduction, and the liability had become time-barred. Therefore, Section 41(1) could not be invoked merely because the payment of liability had become barred by limitation. The Tribunal correctly held that the provisions of Section 41(1) are inapplicable where the existence of liability itself is doubted, and the addition could have been made in the year the liability was claimed or treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68.
The High Court upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 41(1) of the Income Tax Act. The provisions of Section 41(1) require the assessee to have claimed an allowance or deduction in respect of a loan, expenditure, or trading liability, which was subsequently recovered or remitted. In the present case, the assessee had not claimed any such deduction, and the liability had become time-barred. Therefore, Section 41(1) could not be invoked merely because the payment of liability had become barred by limitation. The Tribunal correctly held that the provisions of Section 41(1) are inapplicable where the existence of liability itself is doubted, and the addition could have been made in the year the liability was claimed or treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.