Captive power transfer pricing and non-resident export commission rules support deletion of adjustments and withholding disallowance in discussed proc...
Cooperative society deposits, member-interest TDS exemption and credit-facility deduction claims require verification through records and supporting e...
Customs jurisdiction over EPCG condition breaches survives export-obligation discharge certificates, requiring alleged fraud and misdeclaration to be ...
Contractual tolerance requires consideration; breach recoveries, qualifying public infrastructure services and road works escape service tax liability...
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.