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 expenditure towards environmental compensation was debated as penal or compensatory in nature. The adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) was challenged. It was held that such a question cannot fall within the ambit of Section 143(1), where only arithmetical mistakes and incorrect claim adjustments are to be examined by software during return processing. If the assessment was scrutinized and the Assessing Officer confronted the assessee, the issue could have been decided differently. However, in a Section 143(1) proceeding, such disallowance cannot be made without examining the Pollution Control Board's order directing the payment. Every payment by the assessee would not be penal, therefore, the disallowance was unsustainable. The ground of appeal was allowed, and the disallowance was deleted.
The expenditure towards environmental compensation was debated as penal or compensatory in nature. The adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) was challenged. It was held that such a question cannot fall within the ambit of Section 143(1), where only arithmetical mistakes and incorrect claim adjustments are to be examined by software during return processing. If the assessment was scrutinized and the Assessing Officer confronted the assessee, the issue could have been decided differently. However, in a Section 143(1) proceeding, such disallowance cannot be made without examining the Pollution Control Board's order directing the payment. Every payment by the assessee would not be penal, therefore, the disallowance was unsustainable. The ground of appeal was allowed, and the disallowance was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.