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 held the assessee failed to justify share valuation under Sec. 56(2)(viib), as the submitted valuation report omitted loan liabilities. CIT(A)'s direction for valuation from two valuers at assessee's option while restricting AO's scope was deemed unjustified. The DCF-based valuation was questioned due to lack of business activities in subsequent years. Following precedent from Madras HC, ITAT remanded the matter back to AO for fresh determination of share FMV, as the original fact-finding exercise was incomplete. The valuation must consider all liabilities and actual business performance. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes, directing AO to conduct comprehensive share valuation under Sec. 56(2)(viib).
ITAT held the assessee failed to justify share valuation under Sec. 56(2)(viib), as the submitted valuation report omitted loan liabilities. CIT(A)'s direction for valuation from two valuers at assessee's option while restricting AO's scope was deemed unjustified. The DCF-based valuation was questioned due to lack of business activities in subsequent years. Following precedent from Madras HC, ITAT remanded the matter back to AO for fresh determination of share FMV, as the original fact-finding exercise was incomplete. The valuation must consider all liabilities and actual business performance. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes, directing AO to conduct comprehensive share valuation under Sec. 56(2)(viib).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.