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 allowed the assessee's appeal, determining that expenditures on leasehold property (including carpentry, electrical work, painting, false ceiling, repairs, maintenance, and miscellaneous expenses) constitute revenue expenditure. The court rejected the Tribunal's interpretation that simultaneous repair works amounted to reconstruction. The HC clarified that Explanation (1) to Section 32(1)(ii) enables lessees to claim depreciation and does not mandate treating all leasehold property expenses as capital expenditure. The court found the Tribunal's reasoning perverse and not supported by available evidence, thereby validating the assessee's claim of revenue expenditure.
HC allowed the assessee's appeal, determining that expenditures on leasehold property (including carpentry, electrical work, painting, false ceiling, repairs, maintenance, and miscellaneous expenses) constitute revenue expenditure. The court rejected the Tribunal's interpretation that simultaneous repair works amounted to reconstruction. The HC clarified that Explanation (1) to Section 32(1)(ii) enables lessees to claim depreciation and does not mandate treating all leasehold property expenses as capital expenditure. The court found the Tribunal's reasoning perverse and not supported by available evidence, thereby validating the assessee's claim of revenue expenditure.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.