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 assessee company received share capital and share application money from 13 share applicants. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition u/s 68, alleging that the identity, creditworthiness of the share applicants, and genuineness of the transactions were not proved. The assessee filed voluminous documents to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. The Tribunal held that the documents speak for themselves, proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness beyond doubt, as the share applicant companies had sufficient net worth to make the investments in the NBFC company for better returns. Once the assessee discharged the primary onus, the burden shifted to the Revenue. The AO's general observations of dissatisfaction without examining the correctness of the documents were unjustified. The audited balance sheets showed the share applicants had sufficient net worth. The provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) were not applicable for the year under consideration. The assessee successfully explained the nature and source of the share application money by proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. The assessee discharged the burden of proof, and the Revenue did not dispute the details except making general observations. Hence, no addition u/s 68 was called for.
The assessee company received share capital and share application money from 13 share applicants. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition u/s 68, alleging that the identity, creditworthiness of the share applicants, and genuineness of the transactions were not proved. The assessee filed voluminous documents to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. The Tribunal held that the documents speak for themselves, proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness beyond doubt, as the share applicant companies had sufficient net worth to make the investments in the NBFC company for better returns. Once the assessee discharged the primary onus, the burden shifted to the Revenue. The AO's general observations of dissatisfaction without examining the correctness of the documents were unjustified. The audited balance sheets showed the share applicants had sufficient net worth. The provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) were not applicable for the year under consideration. The assessee successfully explained the nature and source of the share application money by proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. The assessee discharged the burden of proof, and the Revenue did not dispute the details except making general observations. Hence, no addition u/s 68 was called for.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.