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 held that the addition made by the AO on account of the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual sale consideration was not justified without referring the matter to the DVO as mandated under Sections 50C and 55A of the Act. The tribunal found that the fair market value claimed by the assessee was lower than the stamp duty value, and the AO was obligated to seek valuation from the DVO to resolve the discrepancy. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the AO's order without such reference, rendering the appellate order arbitrary and legally unsustainable. The ITAT also noted the failure of the CIT(A) to conduct an inquiry under Section 250(4) and (6). Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, directing the AO to comply with the statutory provisions regarding valuation.
The ITAT held that the addition made by the AO on account of the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual sale consideration was not justified without referring the matter to the DVO as mandated under Sections 50C and 55A of the Act. The tribunal found that the fair market value claimed by the assessee was lower than the stamp duty value, and the AO was obligated to seek valuation from the DVO to resolve the discrepancy. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the AO's order without such reference, rendering the appellate order arbitrary and legally unsustainable. The ITAT also noted the failure of the CIT(A) to conduct an inquiry under Section 250(4) and (6). Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, directing the AO to comply with the statutory provisions regarding valuation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
