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's claim for deduction u/s 80IC for the finished products manufactured at Unit No. III at Paonta Sahib, Himachal Pradesh, was initially allowed but later doubted by the Assessing Officer (AO) from the assessment year 2014-15 onwards, citing concerns about the available machinery and electricity consumption not supporting the claimed quantum of production. The Tribunal, in its order dated 02.06.2020, factually verified the issue and concluded that the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction u/s 80IC for Unit III. For the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14, the disallowances were confirmed as the Tribunal's decision was not available before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). However, for the assessment year 2010-11, the FAA not only held the reopening of assessment u/s 147 to be invalid due to a mere change of opinion but also decided the issue on merits following the Tribunal's decision for the assessment year 2014-15. The facts across all assessment years were identical, and the Tribunal's decision for the assessment year 2014-15 covered the issue for the assessment year 2010-11 as well. Ultimately, the assessee was entitled to claim the deduction u/s 80IC.
The assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80IC for the finished products manufactured at Unit No. III at Paonta Sahib, Himachal Pradesh, was initially allowed but later doubted by the Assessing Officer (AO) from the assessment year 2014-15 onwards, citing concerns about the available machinery and electricity consumption not supporting the claimed quantum of production. The Tribunal, in its order dated 02.06.2020, factually verified the issue and concluded that the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction u/s 80IC for Unit III. For the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14, the disallowances were confirmed as the Tribunal's decision was not available before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). However, for the assessment year 2010-11, the FAA not only held the reopening of assessment u/s 147 to be invalid due to a mere change of opinion but also decided the issue on merits following the Tribunal's decision for the assessment year 2014-15. The facts across all assessment years were identical, and the Tribunal's decision for the assessment year 2014-15 covered the issue for the assessment year 2010-11 as well. Ultimately, the assessee was entitled to claim the deduction u/s 80IC.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.