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(2) was contested due to the trust's failure to file Form No. 10 within the due date specified u/s 139(1) owing to technical issues. The provisions of section 11(2) mandate charitable trusts to apply a specified percentage of income for charitable purposes, with an option to accumulate or set apart the prescribed percentage for application in India, subject to conditions. The issue centered on whether furnishing the statement in the prescribed Form No. 10 on or before the due date of filing the return is mandatory or directory in nature for availing exemption u/s 11(2). Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Wipro Ltd., which held furnishing the prescribed form within the due date as mandatory for claiming benefits u/s 10B(8), the Tribunal concluded that filing Form No. 10 is mandatory for claiming exemption u/s 11(2). However, considering the assessee's grievance petition citing technical glitches on the Income-tax portal and the delay being within 365 days, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO with directions to allow the assessee to apply for condonation of delay to the CIT(Exemption). Upon condonation, the AO shall decide the exemption claim u/s 11.
Denial of exemption u/s 11(2) was contested due to the trust's failure to file Form No. 10 within the due date specified u/s 139(1) owing to technical issues. The provisions of section 11(2) mandate charitable trusts to apply a specified percentage of income for charitable purposes, with an option to accumulate or set apart the prescribed percentage for application in India, subject to conditions. The issue centered on whether furnishing the statement in the prescribed Form No. 10 on or before the due date of filing the return is mandatory or directory in nature for availing exemption u/s 11(2). Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Wipro Ltd., which held furnishing the prescribed form within the due date as mandatory for claiming benefits u/s 10B(8), the Tribunal concluded that filing Form No. 10 is mandatory for claiming exemption u/s 11(2). However, considering the assessee's grievance petition citing technical glitches on the Income-tax portal and the delay being within 365 days, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO with directions to allow the assessee to apply for condonation of delay to the CIT(Exemption). Upon condonation, the AO shall decide the exemption claim u/s 11.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.