Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Data transmission equipment classification under CTSH 8517 62 remains distinct from residual classification, with exemption evidence requiring scrutin...
The HC upheld the assessee's methodology for computing deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the I.T. Act. Since the assessee's accounts did not segregate actual expenditure for eligible business, the court approved the proportionate allocation method where the ratio of total income to total expenditure was applied to eligible business income to determine eligible business expenses. This approach was justified as the accounts showed gross income and expenditure for the entire business, as well as gross income for eligible business, but not specific expenditure for eligible business. The court confirmed that 20% of the resulting profit figure from eligible business qualified for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii).
The HC upheld the assessee's methodology for computing deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the I.T. Act. Since the assessee's accounts did not segregate actual expenditure for eligible business, the court approved the proportionate allocation method where the ratio of total income to total expenditure was applied to eligible business income to determine eligible business expenses. This approach was justified as the accounts showed gross income and expenditure for the entire business, as well as gross income for eligible business, but not specific expenditure for eligible business. The court confirmed that 20% of the resulting profit figure from eligible business qualified for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
