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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
The case pertains to the applicability of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act in determining the full value of consideration for computing capital gains in the hands of the purchaser (assessee). The key points are: The Assessing Officer (AO) invoked Section 50C to deem the stamp duty valuation as the full value of consideration, treating the difference as unexplained investment in the hands of the purchaser. However, Section 50C is applicable to the seller, not the purchaser. Section 56(2)(vii), introduced in 2014, provides for deeming the stamp duty valuation as the purchase cost for the buyer, with the difference treated as a deemed gift. Since the assessment year was prior to 2014, this provision was not applicable. The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was unsustainable and contrary to law, observing a vindictive approach without understanding the issue. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
The case pertains to the applicability of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act in determining the full value of consideration for computing capital gains in the hands of the purchaser (assessee). The key points are: The Assessing Officer (AO) invoked Section 50C to deem the stamp duty valuation as the full value of consideration, treating the difference as unexplained investment in the hands of the purchaser. However, Section 50C is applicable to the seller, not the purchaser. Section 56(2)(vii), introduced in 2014, provides for deeming the stamp duty valuation as the purchase cost for the buyer, with the difference treated as a deemed gift. Since the assessment year was prior to 2014, this provision was not applicable. The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was unsustainable and contrary to law, observing a vindictive approach without understanding the issue. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
