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 assessee provided project advisory services to Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) formed to execute infrastructure contracts obtained from NHAI. The assessee contended that the SPVs were its 'enterprise' or 'undertaking' for claiming deduction u/s 80IA. However, it was held that the SPVs were separate legal entities executing the infrastructure facility development and operation work. The assessee raised invoices on the SPVs for its services, indicating recognition of the SPVs as separate entities. The SPVs filed separate returns, and the assessee's income was not credited to its profit and loss account, contrary to an owned enterprise. The consortium members charged the SPVs more than their costs, earning profits. Therefore, the SPVs could not be considered the assessee's undertaking, and the assessee merely executed a works contract for the SPVs. Consequently, the assessee was ineligible for deduction u/s 80IA as a works contractor. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the rejection of the Section 80IA deduction claim.
The assessee provided project advisory services to Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) formed to execute infrastructure contracts obtained from NHAI. The assessee contended that the SPVs were its 'enterprise' or 'undertaking' for claiming deduction u/s 80IA. However, it was held that the SPVs were separate legal entities executing the infrastructure facility development and operation work. The assessee raised invoices on the SPVs for its services, indicating recognition of the SPVs as separate entities. The SPVs filed separate returns, and the assessee's income was not credited to its profit and loss account, contrary to an owned enterprise. The consortium members charged the SPVs more than their costs, earning profits. Therefore, the SPVs could not be considered the assessee's undertaking, and the assessee merely executed a works contract for the SPVs. Consequently, the assessee was ineligible for deduction u/s 80IA as a works contractor. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the rejection of the Section 80IA deduction claim.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.