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 case involves bogus purchases u/s 69C, with the assessee dealing in bullion. The Gross Profit (GP) rate estimation is crucial. The assessee argued that the GP rate for bullion cannot exceed 0.15%, supported by a demonstrated 0.13% GP rate on sales. It was shown that if purchases are deemed bogus, the GP percentage would unreasonably inflate to 26%. The addition of entire purchases was deemed unsustainable. Even if purchases were from other vendors, the maximum profit margin was held at 0.15%. The Appellate Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to use a 0.15% GP rate for disputed purchases instead of the 0.13% claimed by the assessee, partly allowing the appeal.
The case involves bogus purchases u/s 69C, with the assessee dealing in bullion. The Gross Profit (GP) rate estimation is crucial. The assessee argued that the GP rate for bullion cannot exceed 0.15%, supported by a demonstrated 0.13% GP rate on sales. It was shown that if purchases are deemed bogus, the GP percentage would unreasonably inflate to 26%. The addition of entire purchases was deemed unsustainable. Even if purchases were from other vendors, the maximum profit margin was held at 0.15%. The Appellate Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to use a 0.15% GP rate for disputed purchases instead of the 0.13% claimed by the assessee, partly allowing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.