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 Tribunal set aside the disallowance of short-term loss claimed by the assessee in the Profit and Loss Account, holding that the shares were acquired under a normal business transaction and can be treated as stock-in-trade. The High Court held that u/s 260-A of the Act, it could entertain an appeal only if it involves a substantial question of law. In the present case, the question raised by the Revenue is not a substantial question of law but a question of fact. The Revenue did not file an appeal before the Tribunal regarding the colorable device or genuineness of the transaction or the allowance of loss. The substantial question of law raised by the Revenue emanates from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), not the Tribunal's order. The Revenue did not raise the issue of the genuineness of the transaction or colorable device before the Tribunal. Therefore, the High Court is not inclined to interfere with the Tribunal's order and answered the substantial question of law raised by the Revenue against them and in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the disallowance of short-term loss claimed by the assessee in the Profit and Loss Account, holding that the shares were acquired under a normal business transaction and can be treated as stock-in-trade. The High Court held that u/s 260-A of the Act, it could entertain an appeal only if it involves a substantial question of law. In the present case, the question raised by the Revenue is not a substantial question of law but a question of fact. The Revenue did not file an appeal before the Tribunal regarding the colorable device or genuineness of the transaction or the allowance of loss. The substantial question of law raised by the Revenue emanates from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), not the Tribunal's order. The Revenue did not raise the issue of the genuineness of the transaction or colorable device before the Tribunal. Therefore, the High Court is not inclined to interfere with the Tribunal's order and answered the substantial question of law raised by the Revenue against them and in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
