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" ?
The HC held that Section 41(1) was inapplicable as the liability claimed by the creditor remained unresolved and pending adjudication. Since the suits were sub judice, no remission or cessation of liability had occurred. The assessee had merely made provisions for the liability in the books for AY 2001-02, which did not constitute extinguishment of debt under Section 41(1). The Court relied on established principles that the expiry of the limitation period does not extinguish the debt but only bars enforcement, and unilateral accounting entries by the debtor cannot extinguish liability. Consequently, the assessee was not required to include the amount as income under Section 41(1), affirming the decisions of lower authorities and ruling in favor of the assessee.
The HC held that Section 41(1) was inapplicable as the liability claimed by the creditor remained unresolved and pending adjudication. Since the suits were sub judice, no remission or cessation of liability had occurred. The assessee had merely made provisions for the liability in the books for AY 2001-02, which did not constitute extinguishment of debt under Section 41(1). The Court relied on established principles that the expiry of the limitation period does not extinguish the debt but only bars enforcement, and unilateral accounting entries by the debtor cannot extinguish liability. Consequently, the assessee was not required to include the amount as income under Section 41(1), affirming the decisions of lower authorities and ruling in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.