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 ruled that compensation received by the appellant from Disney Enterprises Inc. for erosion in investment value due to termination of merchandising and distribution rights did not constitute taxable income under section 28(ii)(b). The Tribunal determined that the appellant was not a managing agency in terms of the statutory provision, which requires stricter interpretation as per Commissioner v. Dilip Kumar. The compensation was held to be a capital receipt not liable to tax. Additionally, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's ground regarding section 73 Explanation, ruling that losses on share sales were not speculative in nature, as previously established in the appellant's 2002-03 case where it was determined the appellant was not engaged in share trading.
The ITAT ruled that compensation received by the appellant from Disney Enterprises Inc. for erosion in investment value due to termination of merchandising and distribution rights did not constitute taxable income under section 28(ii)(b). The Tribunal determined that the appellant was not a managing agency in terms of the statutory provision, which requires stricter interpretation as per Commissioner v. Dilip Kumar. The compensation was held to be a capital receipt not liable to tax. Additionally, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's ground regarding section 73 Explanation, ruling that losses on share sales were not speculative in nature, as previously established in the appellant's 2002-03 case where it was determined the appellant was not engaged in share trading.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.