Transfer pricing comparability requires functional alignment, reliable financial data, and careful review of working capital and receivables adjustmen...
Transfer pricing rules require benchmarking corporate guarantees and associated-enterprise advances, while invalid domestic-transaction adjustments ca...
Prospective sugar export prohibition required registered letters of credit; private contracts and export quotas created no enforceable continuation ri...
Retroactive interim-moratorium exclusion permits protective asset disclosure and preservation measures against personal guarantors pending arbitration...
ITAT ruled on income computation under Section 11(1) for a charitable trust manufacturing artificial limbs. Revenue generated from manufacturing activities qualifies as eligible income for accumulation purposes, considering the trust's primary objective of serving disabled persons with affordable prosthetics. The Tribunal directed 15% accumulation under Section 11(1)(a) to be calculated on gross receipts. However, loans received under ADIP and ADIP-SSA schemes were excluded from income computation under Section 11(1), though they can be considered as application of income during utilization year. The trust exceeded the 85% income utilization requirement during the assessment year. Ground nos. 2 and 3 were allowed, while ground no. 4 was dismissed.
ITAT ruled on income computation under Section 11(1) for a charitable trust manufacturing artificial limbs. Revenue generated from manufacturing activities qualifies as eligible income for accumulation purposes, considering the trust's primary objective of serving disabled persons with affordable prosthetics. The Tribunal directed 15% accumulation under Section 11(1)(a) to be calculated on gross receipts. However, loans received under ADIP and ADIP-SSA schemes were excluded from income computation under Section 11(1), though they can be considered as application of income during utilization year. The trust exceeded the 85% income utilization requirement during the assessment year. Ground nos. 2 and 3 were allowed, while ground no. 4 was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.