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 appellant's claim for deduction under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, holding that filing the claim in the original or revised return is not mandatory for availing such deduction. The tribunal found that appellant purchased Delhi property for Rs.22,30,000 one year prior to selling Lucknow property, generating long-term capital gains of Rs.17,13,015. Since the purchase cost exceeded the capital gains amount, full deduction was permissible under sections 45(1) and 54(1)(ii). The addition made by AO and confirmed by CIT(A) was deleted. Regarding addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) for difference between stamp value and sale consideration, ITAT granted relief of Rs.86,66,666 but made it subject to pending High Court proceedings regarding validity of the 2005 agreement to sell the Delhi property.
ITAT allowed appellant's claim for deduction under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, holding that filing the claim in the original or revised return is not mandatory for availing such deduction. The tribunal found that appellant purchased Delhi property for Rs.22,30,000 one year prior to selling Lucknow property, generating long-term capital gains of Rs.17,13,015. Since the purchase cost exceeded the capital gains amount, full deduction was permissible under sections 45(1) and 54(1)(ii). The addition made by AO and confirmed by CIT(A) was deleted. Regarding addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) for difference between stamp value and sale consideration, ITAT granted relief of Rs.86,66,666 but made it subject to pending High Court proceedings regarding validity of the 2005 agreement to sell the Delhi property.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.