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 examined the revisionary powers u/s 263 regarding the allowability of deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(iii). The Assessing Officer (AO) called for information on interest expenses, loans, advances, and the accounting method followed. The Tribunal held that the AO applied their mind, verified the facts, and considered one of the possible views based on the information provided. Mere non-discussion of a query responded to by the assessee in the assessment order does not imply non-application of mind. The Tribunal concluded that the Principal Commissioner's order did not satisfy the twin conditions of being erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Principal Commissioner's order and allowed the assessee's appeal.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal examined the revisionary powers u/s 263 regarding the allowability of deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(iii). The Assessing Officer (AO) called for information on interest expenses, loans, advances, and the accounting method followed. The Tribunal held that the AO applied their mind, verified the facts, and considered one of the possible views based on the information provided. Mere non-discussion of a query responded to by the assessee in the assessment order does not imply non-application of mind. The Tribunal concluded that the Principal Commissioner's order did not satisfy the twin conditions of being erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Principal Commissioner's order and allowed the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.