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" ?
Distinction between Section 69 and Section 56(2) regarding unexplained investment and gift. Section 69 requires the Assessing Officer to establish that the assessee made investments not recorded in books, and the assessee's inability to explain the nature and source. In this case, the payment was made by another person, not the assessee, and the source was satisfactorily explained with evidence. Hence, Section 69 is inapplicable. Section 56(2) regarding taxability as gift was never discussed by authorities. Revenue cannot make a fresh case or improve the order. Documents confirming loan and repayment cannot be denied. Mere lack of repayment capacity does not make it a gift when parties confirm it as a loan secured by joint ownership. Addition u/s 69C for car purchase was rightly deleted as the source was admitted to be from another person's bank account, not the assessee's undisclosed expenditure. Revenue's appeal dismissed.
Distinction between Section 69 and Section 56(2) regarding unexplained investment and gift. Section 69 requires the Assessing Officer to establish that the assessee made investments not recorded in books, and the assessee's inability to explain the nature and source. In this case, the payment was made by another person, not the assessee, and the source was satisfactorily explained with evidence. Hence, Section 69 is inapplicable. Section 56(2) regarding taxability as gift was never discussed by authorities. Revenue cannot make a fresh case or improve the order. Documents confirming loan and repayment cannot be denied. Mere lack of repayment capacity does not make it a gift when parties confirm it as a loan secured by joint ownership. Addition u/s 69C for car purchase was rightly deleted as the source was admitted to be from another person's bank account, not the assessee's undisclosed expenditure. Revenue's appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.