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" ?
Assessment order u/s 143(3) passed against an individual beneficiary, determining the primary assessee liable for taxation. The key points are: the assessment order was passed against the individual beneficiary, not the trust. Although the trust is the primary assessee u/s 160(1)(iv), the department can directly assess the beneficiary u/s 166. Since the assessment was framed against the beneficiary, the beneficiary should have filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), not the trust. The trust's appeal is dismissed, and the beneficiary is allowed to file a delayed appeal before the CIT(Appeals), who is directed to adopt a liberal approach regarding the delay. The issue pertains to the determination of the primary assessee liable for taxation and the unexplained cash deposits u/s 69A, where no source was provided.
Assessment order u/s 143(3) passed against an individual beneficiary, determining the primary assessee liable for taxation. The key points are: the assessment order was passed against the individual beneficiary, not the trust. Although the trust is the primary assessee u/s 160(1)(iv), the department can directly assess the beneficiary u/s 166. Since the assessment was framed against the beneficiary, the beneficiary should have filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), not the trust. The trust's appeal is dismissed, and the beneficiary is allowed to file a delayed appeal before the CIT(Appeals), who is directed to adopt a liberal approach regarding the delay. The issue pertains to the determination of the primary assessee liable for taxation and the unexplained cash deposits u/s 69A, where no source was provided.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.