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" ?
Revision u/s 263 challenged for lack of proper inquiry by Assessing Officer regarding cash deposits during demonetization, scrap sales, and non-submission of audit report. ITAT set aside revision order. Substantial question of law raised. Held that department only challenged factual findings of Tribunal. Supreme Court precedents establish that no substantial question of law arises from factual findings unless perverse. Perversity defined as finding without evidence, unreasonable, based on surmises or suspicion. Tribunal's factual finding perverse only if affecting substantial rights of assessee unreasonably based on record. Tribunal examined facts in detail before ruling in assessee's favor. No perversity found in Tribunal's fact finding.
Revision u/s 263 challenged for lack of proper inquiry by Assessing Officer regarding cash deposits during demonetization, scrap sales, and non-submission of audit report. ITAT set aside revision order. Substantial question of law raised. Held that department only challenged factual findings of Tribunal. Supreme Court precedents establish that no substantial question of law arises from factual findings unless perverse. Perversity defined as finding without evidence, unreasonable, based on surmises or suspicion. Tribunal's factual finding perverse only if affecting substantial rights of assessee unreasonably based on record. Tribunal examined facts in detail before ruling in assessee's favor. No perversity found in Tribunal's fact finding.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
