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 allowed the appeal and directed the AO to grant exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) to the university established by State Legislature Act. The Tribunal held that government financing constitutes "substantial financing" based on judicial precedents establishing thresholds: Karnataka HC determined 37.85% financing qualifies as substantial in one case and 25% in another, while Punjab & Haryana HC concurred with 44.52% threshold. Following these precedents, ITAT concluded the assessee was substantially financed by government and eligible for the claimed deduction. The denial of exemption was overturned, with AO directed to allow the benefit under the relevant provision.
ITAT allowed the appeal and directed the AO to grant exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) to the university established by State Legislature Act. The Tribunal held that government financing constitutes "substantial financing" based on judicial precedents establishing thresholds: Karnataka HC determined 37.85% financing qualifies as substantial in one case and 25% in another, while Punjab & Haryana HC concurred with 44.52% threshold. Following these precedents, ITAT concluded the assessee was substantially financed by government and eligible for the claimed deduction. The denial of exemption was overturned, with AO directed to allow the benefit under the relevant provision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.