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 AO failed to correctly compute the undisclosed income after considering the correct sale value of land as per Form 26AS. The assessee claimed that one of the lands in Form 26AS pertained to "Vaibhav Corporation Pvt. Ltd." and not to him, requiring further verification by the AO. However, the AO failed to make the correct addition u/s 68 and failed to consider the cash deposit, resulting in underassessment of income. The PCIT invoked revision proceedings u/s 263, despite the assessee providing evidence that the sale of property was done by "Vaibhav Corporation Pvt. Ltd." and not by the assessee, including the relevant Form 26AS and a letter from the Sub-Registrar confirming the same. The ITAT held that when such evidence was filed, the PCIT should have dropped the revision proceedings, as incorrect calculation of income is rectifiable u/s 154 and not by invoking Section 263. The ITAT quashed the PCIT's revision order and allowed the assessee's appeal.
The AO failed to correctly compute the undisclosed income after considering the correct sale value of land as per Form 26AS. The assessee claimed that one of the lands in Form 26AS pertained to "Vaibhav Corporation Pvt. Ltd." and not to him, requiring further verification by the AO. However, the AO failed to make the correct addition u/s 68 and failed to consider the cash deposit, resulting in underassessment of income. The PCIT invoked revision proceedings u/s 263, despite the assessee providing evidence that the sale of property was done by "Vaibhav Corporation Pvt. Ltd." and not by the assessee, including the relevant Form 26AS and a letter from the Sub-Registrar confirming the same. The ITAT held that when such evidence was filed, the PCIT should have dropped the revision proceedings, as incorrect calculation of income is rectifiable u/s 154 and not by invoking Section 263. The ITAT quashed the PCIT's revision order and allowed the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.