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 ruled in favor of the appellant, reversing the addition made under s. 68 for unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal found that since the Department had not disputed the genuineness of the assessee's business transactions or books of account, there was no justification for treating bank deposits as unexplained. The CIT(A)'s order was deemed cryptic, arbitrary and legally deficient for failing to provide a speaking order as required under ss. 250(4) and 250(6). The Tribunal noted the assessment order's self-contradictory nature in rejecting the return while determining income. The addition was directed to be deleted as no undisclosed sources of income had been established.
ITAT ruled in favor of the appellant, reversing the addition made under s. 68 for unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal found that since the Department had not disputed the genuineness of the assessee's business transactions or books of account, there was no justification for treating bank deposits as unexplained. The CIT(A)'s order was deemed cryptic, arbitrary and legally deficient for failing to provide a speaking order as required under ss. 250(4) and 250(6). The Tribunal noted the assessment order's self-contradictory nature in rejecting the return while determining income. The addition was directed to be deleted as no undisclosed sources of income had been established.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.