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 ITAT allowed the appellant's appeal concerning the disallowance of sums claimed under an MOU with another entity, rejecting the revenue's contention that the arrangement was a tax evasion device. The Tribunal found no cogent material supporting the addition and upheld the appellant's claim based on the available evidence. However, the appeal against additions under section 40(a)(ii) relating to income tax paid and deferred tax liability was dismissed as infructuous, since the appellant had already adjusted these amounts in the return, and the Assessing Officer was directed to correct the computation accordingly. Consequently, the addition based on the MOU was deleted, while the tax computation was maintained consistent with the appellant's filings.
The ITAT allowed the appellant's appeal concerning the disallowance of sums claimed under an MOU with another entity, rejecting the revenue's contention that the arrangement was a tax evasion device. The Tribunal found no cogent material supporting the addition and upheld the appellant's claim based on the available evidence. However, the appeal against additions under section 40(a)(ii) relating to income tax paid and deferred tax liability was dismissed as infructuous, since the appellant had already adjusted these amounts in the return, and the Assessing Officer was directed to correct the computation accordingly. Consequently, the addition based on the MOU was deleted, while the tax computation was maintained consistent with the appellant's filings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.