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 assessee's appeal and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer regarding unexplained increase in unsecured loan balance. The Tribunal found that the AO erroneously considered only fresh loans of Rs. 2.31 crores while ignoring interest credit of Rs. 61,14,262, TDS deduction of Rs. 6,11,425, and loan repayment of Rs. 2,60,435. When these adjustments were properly accounted for, the apparent difference of Rs. 52,42,402 in unsecured loan balance was fully explained. The Tribunal concluded that no unexplained increase existed after considering all relevant transactions, rendering the AO's addition incorrect and unjustified.
ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer regarding unexplained increase in unsecured loan balance. The Tribunal found that the AO erroneously considered only fresh loans of Rs. 2.31 crores while ignoring interest credit of Rs. 61,14,262, TDS deduction of Rs. 6,11,425, and loan repayment of Rs. 2,60,435. When these adjustments were properly accounted for, the apparent difference of Rs. 52,42,402 in unsecured loan balance was fully explained. The Tribunal concluded that no unexplained increase existed after considering all relevant transactions, rendering the AO's addition incorrect and unjustified.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.