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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the assessee's appeal and admitted additional evidence. The assessee did not disclose income from other sources, which was treated as undisclosed income and taxed u/s 115BBE. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 54F in the return filed u/s 148, though no such claim was made in the original return. The ITAT noted that the assessee was not given an opportunity of being heard and was passing through a difficult time due to the demise of his wife. The assessee could not produce details before the Assessing Officer (AO) but filed additional evidence before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have considered the application u/r 46A and admitted the additional evidence crucial for disposal of the appeal. The matter was set aside to the AO to decide based on the additional evidence and pass an order in accordance with law, without any reflection on the merits of the dispute.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the assessee's appeal and admitted additional evidence. The assessee did not disclose income from other sources, which was treated as undisclosed income and taxed u/s 115BBE. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 54F in the return filed u/s 148, though no such claim was made in the original return. The ITAT noted that the assessee was not given an opportunity of being heard and was passing through a difficult time due to the demise of his wife. The assessee could not produce details before the Assessing Officer (AO) but filed additional evidence before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have considered the application u/r 46A and admitted the additional evidence crucial for disposal of the appeal. The matter was set aside to the AO to decide based on the additional evidence and pass an order in accordance with law, without any reflection on the merits of the dispute.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.