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" ?
ITAT upheld the valuation report of the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) over the registered valuer's assessment. The appellant failed to provide substantive evidence to challenge the DVO's valuation, which they claimed was arbitrary and unreasonable. The assessee's invocation of section 56(2)(vii) read with section 50C lacked supporting documentation, and no such claim was initially raised during rectification proceedings u/s 154. The CIT(A)'s decision was sustained as the appellant presented mere averments without cogent documentary evidence to invalidate the revenue authorities' determinations. The tribunal found the DVO's report valid and reasonable, dismissing the appeal against the assessee.
ITAT upheld the valuation report of the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) over the registered valuer's assessment. The appellant failed to provide substantive evidence to challenge the DVO's valuation, which they claimed was arbitrary and unreasonable. The assessee's invocation of section 56(2)(vii) read with section 50C lacked supporting documentation, and no such claim was initially raised during rectification proceedings u/s 154. The CIT(A)'s decision was sustained as the appellant presented mere averments without cogent documentary evidence to invalidate the revenue authorities' determinations. The tribunal found the DVO's report valid and reasonable, dismissing the appeal against the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.