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 High Court held that the assessee firm was not entitled to claim deduction u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act for the compensation paid. The key points are: The properties involved in the agreement did not belong to the assessee firm during the relevant assessment year. The assessee did not have any right, title or interest in those properties. The assessee was not a party to the agreements related to those properties. The Tribunal's reasoning that the assessee had acquired interest or rights in the properties by virtue of registration or identification was erroneous. The assessee failed to substantiate that the liability for compensation was crystallized or provided for during the relevant year. The Tribunal erred in allowing the assessee's claim by setting aside the concurrent findings of the lower authorities.
The High Court held that the assessee firm was not entitled to claim deduction u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act for the compensation paid. The key points are: The properties involved in the agreement did not belong to the assessee firm during the relevant assessment year. The assessee did not have any right, title or interest in those properties. The assessee was not a party to the agreements related to those properties. The Tribunal's reasoning that the assessee had acquired interest or rights in the properties by virtue of registration or identification was erroneous. The assessee failed to substantiate that the liability for compensation was crystallized or provided for during the relevant year. The Tribunal erred in allowing the assessee's claim by setting aside the concurrent findings of the lower authorities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
