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 set aside the assessment order under section 147, holding that the AO failed to comply with mandatory conditions under sections 147-151A. Regarding infrastructure fund additions, the Tribunal noted the AO issued a cryptic, non-speaking order without explaining the legal basis for additions. The assessment contained patent calculation errors, with incorrect column totals and misidentified infrastructure fund components. Following precedent from the assessee's own cases for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, the Tribunal determined that even if accretions to the infrastructure fund were taxable income, they would remain exempt under section 11. The assessment was vitiated by computational errors and lack of proper reasoning. Appeal allowed.
The ITAT set aside the assessment order under section 147, holding that the AO failed to comply with mandatory conditions under sections 147-151A. Regarding infrastructure fund additions, the Tribunal noted the AO issued a cryptic, non-speaking order without explaining the legal basis for additions. The assessment contained patent calculation errors, with incorrect column totals and misidentified infrastructure fund components. Following precedent from the assessee's own cases for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, the Tribunal determined that even if accretions to the infrastructure fund were taxable income, they would remain exempt under section 11. The assessment was vitiated by computational errors and lack of proper reasoning. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.