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 ITAT held that a statement/document received from a third party cannot be relied upon for making an addition u/s 69A, without giving the assessee an opportunity to contradict the same and cross-examine the person who gave the statement/document. The suo-moto disclosure made by the assessee before the Settlement Commission, without corroborative material/evidence, cannot be the basis for making an addition. In the present case, except for a letter filed before the DCIT/Settlement Commission, there was no other corroborative material/evidence for sustaining the addition. Moreover, no opportunity was given to the assessee to cross-examine the person who made the disclosure/issued the letter relied upon for the addition. Consequently, the addition was held unsustainable and deleted in favor of the assessee.
The ITAT held that a statement/document received from a third party cannot be relied upon for making an addition u/s 69A, without giving the assessee an opportunity to contradict the same and cross-examine the person who gave the statement/document. The suo-moto disclosure made by the assessee before the Settlement Commission, without corroborative material/evidence, cannot be the basis for making an addition. In the present case, except for a letter filed before the DCIT/Settlement Commission, there was no other corroborative material/evidence for sustaining the addition. Moreover, no opportunity was given to the assessee to cross-examine the person who made the disclosure/issued the letter relied upon for the addition. Consequently, the addition was held unsustainable and deleted in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.