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" ?
Corpus donations received by the trust for running Kalyana Mandapam were voluntary in nature and could not be treated as rental receipts. Although the activity generated surplus, the surplus was utilized for furthering other charitable purposes mentioned in the trust deed. The trust confined its activities within the boundaries set by the trust deed and did not drift from its objects. Therefore, the trust's claim for exemption u/s 11 could not be denied merely because the Kalyana Mandapam activity resulted in surplus funds. The Appellate Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant exemption u/s 11 and recompute the income for all years.
Corpus donations received by the trust for running Kalyana Mandapam were voluntary in nature and could not be treated as rental receipts. Although the activity generated surplus, the surplus was utilized for furthering other charitable purposes mentioned in the trust deed. The trust confined its activities within the boundaries set by the trust deed and did not drift from its objects. Therefore, the trust's claim for exemption u/s 11 could not be denied merely because the Kalyana Mandapam activity resulted in surplus funds. The Appellate Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant exemption u/s 11 and recompute the income for all years.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.