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" ?
The ITAT held that the appellant's surrender of tenancy rights constituted a transfer of capital asset under section 2(47). The Tribunal determined that the tenancy right was acquired in 1954 through payment of a non-refundable security deposit of Rs. 1,080, which represented the cost of acquisition under section 55(2)(a)(i). Since the asset was acquired before April 1, 2001, the appellant was entitled to adopt either the fair market value as on that date or the actual cost as the acquisition cost, with indexation benefits under section 48. Based on the valuation certified by a registered government valuer, the transaction resulted in a net capital loss. The ITAT deleted the addition made by the AO, allowing the appellant's grounds of appeal.
The ITAT held that the appellant's surrender of tenancy rights constituted a transfer of capital asset under section 2(47). The Tribunal determined that the tenancy right was acquired in 1954 through payment of a non-refundable security deposit of Rs. 1,080, which represented the cost of acquisition under section 55(2)(a)(i). Since the asset was acquired before April 1, 2001, the appellant was entitled to adopt either the fair market value as on that date or the actual cost as the acquisition cost, with indexation benefits under section 48. Based on the valuation certified by a registered government valuer, the transaction resulted in a net capital loss. The ITAT deleted the addition made by the AO, allowing the appellant's grounds of appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.