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 High Court held that u/r 11UA(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, the assessee has the option to choose between the Net Asset Value method or the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method for computing the fair market value for the applicability of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act. Once the assessee exercises this option, the Assessing Officer cannot question the applicability or computation of the fair market value using the chosen method, even during regular assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment merely because the valuation under one method is lower than the other method chosen by the assessee, as this does not constitute an escapement of income. The court opined that the Assessing Officer cannot assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment to verify the veracity and computation under the DCF method on the ground that the assessee did not fulfill the projected growth in subsequent years, as no assessee can accurately predict future growth at the time of making projections.
The High Court held that u/r 11UA(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, the assessee has the option to choose between the Net Asset Value method or the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method for computing the fair market value for the applicability of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act. Once the assessee exercises this option, the Assessing Officer cannot question the applicability or computation of the fair market value using the chosen method, even during regular assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment merely because the valuation under one method is lower than the other method chosen by the assessee, as this does not constitute an escapement of income. The court opined that the Assessing Officer cannot assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment to verify the veracity and computation under the DCF method on the ground that the assessee did not fulfill the projected growth in subsequent years, as no assessee can accurately predict future growth at the time of making projections.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.