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" ?
During the demonetization period, the assessee deposited Rs. 36.50 lacs in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) in their bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition u/s 69A by applying the rate of 77.25% and attracting Section 115BBE instead of the normal tax slab. However, the assessee had shown opening cash in hand and provided details of cash expenses, which were not disputed by the authorities. The withdrawals and opening cash balance were also undisputed. Even after depositing Rs. 36.50 lacs, the assessee showed Rs. 9,72,482/- as cash in hand, which was not disputed. The Appellate Tribunal held that since the source of cash withdrawals was proved, no addition on account of SBN deposits was justified when the assessee had no option but to deposit the high-denomination notes during demonetization. The AO's action was based on mere suspicion and guesswork. The decision was in favor of the assessee.
During the demonetization period, the assessee deposited Rs. 36.50 lacs in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) in their bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition u/s 69A by applying the rate of 77.25% and attracting Section 115BBE instead of the normal tax slab. However, the assessee had shown opening cash in hand and provided details of cash expenses, which were not disputed by the authorities. The withdrawals and opening cash balance were also undisputed. Even after depositing Rs. 36.50 lacs, the assessee showed Rs. 9,72,482/- as cash in hand, which was not disputed. The Appellate Tribunal held that since the source of cash withdrawals was proved, no addition on account of SBN deposits was justified when the assessee had no option but to deposit the high-denomination notes during demonetization. The AO's action was based on mere suspicion and guesswork. The decision was in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.