Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
ITAT allowed appellant's appeal regarding double taxation of unbilled revenue. Appellant erroneously offered excess income to tax by accruing unbilled revenue from one customer, which was subsequently taxed again in AY 2019-20 upon invoice generation. Tribunal examined computation statements and revised returns, confirming revenue reduction in FY 2019-20 was added back in AY 2020-21 computation. ITAT found merit in appellant's contention that income was taxed twice - initially as unbilled revenue in respective financial years and again upon invoice raising in the assessment year under consideration. Tribunal directed Assessing Officer to reduce appellant's income by the amount erroneously excess offered to tax, preventing double taxation of the same revenue stream.
ITAT allowed appellant's appeal regarding double taxation of unbilled revenue. Appellant erroneously offered excess income to tax by accruing unbilled revenue from one customer, which was subsequently taxed again in AY 2019-20 upon invoice generation. Tribunal examined computation statements and revised returns, confirming revenue reduction in FY 2019-20 was added back in AY 2020-21 computation. ITAT found merit in appellant's contention that income was taxed twice - initially as unbilled revenue in respective financial years and again upon invoice raising in the assessment year under consideration. Tribunal directed Assessing Officer to reduce appellant's income by the amount erroneously excess offered to tax, preventing double taxation of the same revenue stream.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.