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" ?
HC held that in cases of company liquidation, Sections 46(2), 49(1)(iii)(c), and 55(2)(b)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are applicable for computing capital gains. The unique circumstance involved two transactions within the same financial year: share transfer resulting in asset distribution and subsequent asset sale. The court found the Tribunal's procedural approach incorrect, particularly in not referring the matter to a larger bench. The computation methodology for cost of acquisition was determined by analyzing both transactions comprehensively. Ultimately, the decision was rendered against the revenue, favoring the assessee's interpretation of the statutory provisions.
HC held that in cases of company liquidation, Sections 46(2), 49(1)(iii)(c), and 55(2)(b)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are applicable for computing capital gains. The unique circumstance involved two transactions within the same financial year: share transfer resulting in asset distribution and subsequent asset sale. The court found the Tribunal's procedural approach incorrect, particularly in not referring the matter to a larger bench. The computation methodology for cost of acquisition was determined by analyzing both transactions comprehensively. Ultimately, the decision was rendered against the revenue, favoring the assessee's interpretation of the statutory provisions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.