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 Court held that the amount paid by parents for admission of students to the educational institution run by the trust should be treated as corpus donation and not capitation fee. The Assessing Officer erred in treating the donation as capitation fee without proper inquiry from parents regarding the nature of payment. In absence of any contrary evidence, the amount cannot be characterized as capitation fee and the trust is entitled to exemption u/s 11(1)(d). The Tribunal's decision treating admission fee as non-corpus was incorrect. The appeal was decided in favor of the assessee against the revenue.
The Court held that the amount paid by parents for admission of students to the educational institution run by the trust should be treated as corpus donation and not capitation fee. The Assessing Officer erred in treating the donation as capitation fee without proper inquiry from parents regarding the nature of payment. In absence of any contrary evidence, the amount cannot be characterized as capitation fee and the trust is entitled to exemption u/s 11(1)(d). The Tribunal's decision treating admission fee as non-corpus was incorrect. The appeal was decided in favor of the assessee against the revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.