Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The case pertains to the treatment of income received from an arbitral award in the assessment year. The AO passed an assessment order u/s 143(3) after the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. The ITAT recorded that the AO issued a statutory notice u/s 142(1) with a specific query about the Nardana Claim-1 & Nardana Claim-2, and the assessee filed a cogent reply. The AO's approach in accepting the assessee's explanation regarding the recognition of liability for Nardana Claim-1 & Nardana Claim-2 as income in the AY 2018-19 was found sustainable. The amount was paid to the assessee in AY 2018-19 after furnishing a 100% bank guarantee on 100% margin, and it was rightly shown as a liability in the balance sheet. The income was shown in the next assessment year, i.e., 2019-20, after the Dhule Court's order in favor of the assessee. The ITAT did not find fault in the assessee's approach, considering the law laid down in the Hindustan Housing & Land Development Trust Limited case, where it was held that as long as there remains a dispute/litigation, the income cannot be said to have 'accrued' or '.
The case pertains to the treatment of income received from an arbitral award in the assessment year. The AO passed an assessment order u/s 143(3) after the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. The ITAT recorded that the AO issued a statutory notice u/s 142(1) with a specific query about the Nardana Claim-1 & Nardana Claim-2, and the assessee filed a cogent reply. The AO's approach in accepting the assessee's explanation regarding the recognition of liability for Nardana Claim-1 & Nardana Claim-2 as income in the AY 2018-19 was found sustainable. The amount was paid to the assessee in AY 2018-19 after furnishing a 100% bank guarantee on 100% margin, and it was rightly shown as a liability in the balance sheet. The income was shown in the next assessment year, i.e., 2019-20, after the Dhule Court's order in favor of the assessee. The ITAT did not find fault in the assessee's approach, considering the law laid down in the Hindustan Housing & Land Development Trust Limited case, where it was held that as long as there remains a dispute/litigation, the income cannot be said to have 'accrued' or '.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.