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 assessee was in default u/s 201(1) for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194LBC on the Excess Interest Spread (EIS) paid to the Originator. The CIT(A) held that since the Originator did not subscribe to any Pass-Through Certificates (PTCs), it cannot be termed as an 'investor' u/s 194LBC read with Section 115TCA, and no investment was made by the Originator. Therefore, the provisions of Section 194LBC were not attracted. The ITAT, relying on previous decisions, observed that the issue had been extensively dealt with by the jurisdictional coordinate bench, which had taken a view in support of the assessee. Finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, the ITAT dismissed the grounds of appeal.
The assessee was in default u/s 201(1) for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194LBC on the Excess Interest Spread (EIS) paid to the Originator. The CIT(A) held that since the Originator did not subscribe to any Pass-Through Certificates (PTCs), it cannot be termed as an 'investor' u/s 194LBC read with Section 115TCA, and no investment was made by the Originator. Therefore, the provisions of Section 194LBC were not attracted. The ITAT, relying on previous decisions, observed that the issue had been extensively dealt with by the jurisdictional coordinate bench, which had taken a view in support of the assessee. Finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, the ITAT dismissed the grounds of appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.