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 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.