Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
