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 failed to substantiate the provision made for freight, material handling charges, and IT support expenses as an allowable expenditure. The assessee merely stated that provisions were made on an accrual basis without providing any evidence or documents to demonstrate that they were calculated scientifically or based on previous years' trends. Despite being asked to furnish the basis for making provisions during assessment proceedings and before the ITAT, the assessee did not submit any documents. The assessee only provided a list of entities to whom payments were made in subsequent years, which did not establish that services were received from them during the relevant assessment year. As per the Income Tax Act and Supreme Court ruling, provisions are not allowable expenses unless proven to be made on a scientific basis. Since the assessee admitted the provisions were estimated and failed to substantiate the scientific basis, the disallowance of provisions as allowable expenditure was upheld.
The assessee failed to substantiate the provision made for freight, material handling charges, and IT support expenses as an allowable expenditure. The assessee merely stated that provisions were made on an accrual basis without providing any evidence or documents to demonstrate that they were calculated scientifically or based on previous years' trends. Despite being asked to furnish the basis for making provisions during assessment proceedings and before the ITAT, the assessee did not submit any documents. The assessee only provided a list of entities to whom payments were made in subsequent years, which did not establish that services were received from them during the relevant assessment year. As per the Income Tax Act and Supreme Court ruling, provisions are not allowable expenses unless proven to be made on a scientific basis. Since the assessee admitted the provisions were estimated and failed to substantiate the scientific basis, the disallowance of provisions as allowable expenditure was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.