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" ?
Sections 132B, 140A, 153A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were analyzed regarding adjustment of seized cash against tax liability. The appellants claimed that cash seized from Sarup Chand should be treated as their cash and adjusted against their tax liability u/s 140A read with Section 153A. However, Section 132B provides for dealing with seized assets as prescribed. While determining tax liability, tax deducted/collected at source and advance tax are deducted from total liability. The appellants did not pay advance tax and wrongly claimed the seized amount from Sarup Chand should be treated as their advance tax u/s 132B. The seized cash was in Sarup Chand's bank account, and until liability determination, there was no question of adjustment against appellants' liability. They were liable for interest u/s 234B on delayed advance tax payment. The seized cash from Sarup Chand could not be treated as appellants' cash from seizure date and could not be adjusted against their liability on that date. Revenue correctly adjusted seized cash from assessment framing date and charged interest u/s 234B on delayed advance tax payment.
Sections 132B, 140A, 153A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were analyzed regarding adjustment of seized cash against tax liability. The appellants claimed that cash seized from Sarup Chand should be treated as their cash and adjusted against their tax liability u/s 140A read with Section 153A. However, Section 132B provides for dealing with seized assets as prescribed. While determining tax liability, tax deducted/collected at source and advance tax are deducted from total liability. The appellants did not pay advance tax and wrongly claimed the seized amount from Sarup Chand should be treated as their advance tax u/s 132B. The seized cash was in Sarup Chand's bank account, and until liability determination, there was no question of adjustment against appellants' liability. They were liable for interest u/s 234B on delayed advance tax payment. The seized cash from Sarup Chand could not be treated as appellants' cash from seizure date and could not be adjusted against their liability on that date. Revenue correctly adjusted seized cash from assessment framing date and charged interest u/s 234B on delayed advance tax payment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
