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 case pertains to a provisional attachment order issued u/s 24(4) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, involving a benami transaction. The key points are: The property was purchased before the 2016 amendment, but the benamidar held it even after the amendment. The amending Act's definition of "benami transaction" was not considered by the Adjudicating Authority. The company in whose name the property was purchased lacked the financial capacity to pay the consideration of Rs. 1 crore. Another company, whose ITR reflected the property's address, was found to be holding the property in the name of the first company. Despite not contesting the factual issues, the Appellate Tribunal found reasons to interfere with the impugned order, likely due to the applicability of the amended Act's provisions and the evidence suggesting a benami transaction.
The case pertains to a provisional attachment order issued u/s 24(4) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, involving a benami transaction. The key points are: The property was purchased before the 2016 amendment, but the benamidar held it even after the amendment. The amending Act's definition of "benami transaction" was not considered by the Adjudicating Authority. The company in whose name the property was purchased lacked the financial capacity to pay the consideration of Rs. 1 crore. Another company, whose ITR reflected the property's address, was found to be holding the property in the name of the first company. Despite not contesting the factual issues, the Appellate Tribunal found reasons to interfere with the impugned order, likely due to the applicability of the amended Act's provisions and the evidence suggesting a benami transaction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
