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" ?
ITAT held that the Assessing Officer (AO) erroneously attempted to classify a loan repayment as a perquisite under Section 2(24)(iv). Upon careful examination, the tribunal determined that the company-employer merely repaid a loan previously extended by the assessee, and the subsequent use of funds by the assessee was not relevant. The loan repayment did not constitute a benefit or discharge of the assessee's obligation. Moreover, the assessee still owed a balance to the employer, further negating the perquisite classification. Consequently, the ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, rejecting the AO's addition and affirming that the transaction did not meet the statutory criteria for a deemed perquisite.
ITAT held that the Assessing Officer (AO) erroneously attempted to classify a loan repayment as a perquisite under Section 2(24)(iv). Upon careful examination, the tribunal determined that the company-employer merely repaid a loan previously extended by the assessee, and the subsequent use of funds by the assessee was not relevant. The loan repayment did not constitute a benefit or discharge of the assessee's obligation. Moreover, the assessee still owed a balance to the employer, further negating the perquisite classification. Consequently, the ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, rejecting the AO's addition and affirming that the transaction did not meet the statutory criteria for a deemed perquisite.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
