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" ?
Two key issues: 1) Assessment of rental income received by co-owners as income of an Association of Persons (AOP), and 2) Treatment of income from letting out a plinth as income from house property. Regarding the first issue, the court held that the rental income should be assessed as AOP income as the co-owners jointly received rent, maintained a single account, and raised loans collectively. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in ITO vs Ch. Atchaiah, which allowed assessing AOP income even if members were previously assessed individually. On the second issue, the court ruled that a plinth cannot be treated as a building for the purpose of Section 26 of the Act. A plinth is merely the floor level above the ground, and construction on it does not qualify as a building. Therefore, income from letting out a plinth cannot be considered income from house property, and depreciation cannot be allowed on it.
Two key issues: 1) Assessment of rental income received by co-owners as income of an Association of Persons (AOP), and 2) Treatment of income from letting out a plinth as income from house property. Regarding the first issue, the court held that the rental income should be assessed as AOP income as the co-owners jointly received rent, maintained a single account, and raised loans collectively. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in ITO vs Ch. Atchaiah, which allowed assessing AOP income even if members were previously assessed individually. On the second issue, the court ruled that a plinth cannot be treated as a building for the purpose of Section 26 of the Act. A plinth is merely the floor level above the ground, and construction on it does not qualify as a building. Therefore, income from letting out a plinth cannot be considered income from house property, and depreciation cannot be allowed on it.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
