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 upheld the findings of the NFAC and ITAT, affirming that the assessee lawfully accumulated less than 15% of its total receipts under section 11(1)(a) for specific purposes. The capital expenditure, including Rs. 3.14 crores accumulated previously and Rs. 2.89 crores utilized in the current year, was correctly treated as part of charitable activities. The outlay of Rs. 8.4 crores on the RO water treatment plant and Rs. 30 lakhs on solar lantern distribution were also held to be in furtherance of charitable purposes. The Revenue failed to demonstrate any error of law or perversity in the factual findings by NFAC and ITAT. Consequently, no substantial question of law arose, resulting in dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. The exemption under section 11 was thus confirmed.
The HC upheld the findings of the NFAC and ITAT, affirming that the assessee lawfully accumulated less than 15% of its total receipts under section 11(1)(a) for specific purposes. The capital expenditure, including Rs. 3.14 crores accumulated previously and Rs. 2.89 crores utilized in the current year, was correctly treated as part of charitable activities. The outlay of Rs. 8.4 crores on the RO water treatment plant and Rs. 30 lakhs on solar lantern distribution were also held to be in furtherance of charitable purposes. The Revenue failed to demonstrate any error of law or perversity in the factual findings by NFAC and ITAT. Consequently, no substantial question of law arose, resulting in dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. The exemption under section 11 was thus confirmed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.