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 Appellate Tribunal examined the validity of an order passed u/s 143(3) by the Assessing Officer (AO), which was revised by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) u/s 263. The key issues were the applicability of Section 43CA (transfer pricing provisions) on sale of flats, late payment of employees' provident fund and ESI contributions, and the applicability of Sections 269SS and 269T (cash transaction restrictions). Regarding Section 43CA, the Tribunal found that the AO had duly examined the issue and accepted the assessee's explanation for the difference between sale consideration and stamp duty valuation, except for one case where the difference exceeded 10%. Thus, the PCIT was unjustified in invoking Section 263. On late payment of PF and ESI, the assessee had deposited the contributions before the due date for filing the return. The PCIT's reliance on a subsequent Supreme Court decision was incorrect, and hence, the invocation of Section 263 was unjustified. Concerning Sections 269SS and 269T, the Tribunal held that the provisions were not applicable for certain transactions involving interest, cancellation of bookings, and repayments through banking channels. Therefore, the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 on this ground was also unjustified.
The Appellate Tribunal examined the validity of an order passed u/s 143(3) by the Assessing Officer (AO), which was revised by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) u/s 263. The key issues were the applicability of Section 43CA (transfer pricing provisions) on sale of flats, late payment of employees' provident fund and ESI contributions, and the applicability of Sections 269SS and 269T (cash transaction restrictions). Regarding Section 43CA, the Tribunal found that the AO had duly examined the issue and accepted the assessee's explanation for the difference between sale consideration and stamp duty valuation, except for one case where the difference exceeded 10%. Thus, the PCIT was unjustified in invoking Section 263. On late payment of PF and ESI, the assessee had deposited the contributions before the due date for filing the return. The PCIT's reliance on a subsequent Supreme Court decision was incorrect, and hence, the invocation of Section 263 was unjustified. Concerning Sections 269SS and 269T, the Tribunal held that the provisions were not applicable for certain transactions involving interest, cancellation of bookings, and repayments through banking channels. Therefore, the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 on this ground was also unjustified.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.