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" ?
HC ruled in favor of revenue department, reversing lower authorities' decision to apply 12.5% estimation on bogus purchases. Assessee failed to explain source of expenditure for alleged purchases during reassessment proceedings. Though assessee provided limited details of sundry debtors, creditors, and stocks before CIT(A), they did not establish transaction genuineness. Before Tribunal, assessee only sought percentage-based estimation without proving purchase authenticity. HC held AO justified in adding entire amount of unexplained expenditure under Section 69C, as partial allowance through profit estimation contradicts statutory provisions. Revenue's appeal allowed, rejecting assessee's claim of having discharged burden of proof regarding purchase genuineness and payment sources.
HC ruled in favor of revenue department, reversing lower authorities' decision to apply 12.5% estimation on bogus purchases. Assessee failed to explain source of expenditure for alleged purchases during reassessment proceedings. Though assessee provided limited details of sundry debtors, creditors, and stocks before CIT(A), they did not establish transaction genuineness. Before Tribunal, assessee only sought percentage-based estimation without proving purchase authenticity. HC held AO justified in adding entire amount of unexplained expenditure under Section 69C, as partial allowance through profit estimation contradicts statutory provisions. Revenue's appeal allowed, rejecting assessee's claim of having discharged burden of proof regarding purchase genuineness and payment sources.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.