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" ?
Denial of exemption u/s 11 was challenged due to alleged violations of Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2)(h), and 13(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The key points are: Section 13(1)(d) was held inapplicable as the assessee's holdings mainly consisted of bonus shares and acquisitions before 1983, covered by an exception. Section 13(2)(h) was inapplicable as no trustee held more than 20% voting power in the company. Section 13(1)(c) was wrongly invoked as payments received by trustees were for past services, not application of trust income. The assessee was not engaged in business u/s 2(15) as it earned only dividends and donations, not business income. The right to nominate directors was to protect the trust's interests. Exemption u/s 11 was upheld, and the appeal was allowed.
Denial of exemption u/s 11 was challenged due to alleged violations of Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2)(h), and 13(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The key points are: Section 13(1)(d) was held inapplicable as the assessee's holdings mainly consisted of bonus shares and acquisitions before 1983, covered by an exception. Section 13(2)(h) was inapplicable as no trustee held more than 20% voting power in the company. Section 13(1)(c) was wrongly invoked as payments received by trustees were for past services, not application of trust income. The assessee was not engaged in business u/s 2(15) as it earned only dividends and donations, not business income. The right to nominate directors was to protect the trust's interests. Exemption u/s 11 was upheld, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.