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" ?
Disallowance u/s 40A(3) for payments exceeding the prescribed limit should be examined considering the business exigencies. If the expenses are necessary for running the business and the revenue has no doubt about the payee's identity and transaction genuineness, disallowance is not required. In the given case, the excess payment may be necessary for the event management business, so the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) cannot be sustained. Deduction claimed u/s VI-A in returns filed in response to notice u/s 153A/B/C is allowed, as the decision in CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works is not applicable to such returns. The CIT(A)'s findings on this issue cannot be sustained. The Assessing Officer should calculate the refund of TDS to the appellant as per the Income Tax Act provisions. The CIT(A)'s view of restricting TDS credit to the appellant's name and business income assessed is not upheld.
Disallowance u/s 40A(3) for payments exceeding the prescribed limit should be examined considering the business exigencies. If the expenses are necessary for running the business and the revenue has no doubt about the payee's identity and transaction genuineness, disallowance is not required. In the given case, the excess payment may be necessary for the event management business, so the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) cannot be sustained. Deduction claimed u/s VI-A in returns filed in response to notice u/s 153A/B/C is allowed, as the decision in CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works is not applicable to such returns. The CIT(A)'s findings on this issue cannot be sustained. The Assessing Officer should calculate the refund of TDS to the appellant as per the Income Tax Act provisions. The CIT(A)'s view of restricting TDS credit to the appellant's name and business income assessed is not upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.