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, a company registered u/s 25 of the Companies Act, 1956, with the main objective of supporting and promoting the export of gems and related activities, was denied exemption u/s 11 by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO considered the exhibition activities conducted by the assessee as commercial, inferring a profit motive. However, the Tribunal held that the assessee's main object was covered u/s 2(15) and the AO failed to point out any deviations. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's activities were for the promotion of trade and business of its members, and the revenue could not establish any business transactions during the exhibitions. Relying on its own earlier orders, the Tribunal ruled that the assessee was eligible for exemption u/s 11 for the assessment year in question, and the denial of carry forward of deficit from earlier years was contrary to the jurisdictional High Court's binding judgment.
The assessee, a company registered u/s 25 of the Companies Act, 1956, with the main objective of supporting and promoting the export of gems and related activities, was denied exemption u/s 11 by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO considered the exhibition activities conducted by the assessee as commercial, inferring a profit motive. However, the Tribunal held that the assessee's main object was covered u/s 2(15) and the AO failed to point out any deviations. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's activities were for the promotion of trade and business of its members, and the revenue could not establish any business transactions during the exhibitions. Relying on its own earlier orders, the Tribunal ruled that the assessee was eligible for exemption u/s 11 for the assessment year in question, and the denial of carry forward of deficit from earlier years was contrary to the jurisdictional High Court's binding judgment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.