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 appeal of the assessee, holding that the error of double addition of income tax provision in the computation of total income was a mistake apparent from the record, rectifiable under section 154 of the Act. The Tribunal found that the mistake was purely arithmetical, evident from the return and accompanying documents, resulting in taxation of an amount not actually earned. It held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the rectification on the ground that the mistake arose from the revised return and directing the assessee to seek relief under section 119(2)(b), which was inapplicable. The AO was directed to rectify the total income by excluding Rs. 7,40,474 and recompute the income accordingly, granting consequential relief including refund and interest as per law.
The ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the error of double addition of income tax provision in the computation of total income was a mistake apparent from the record, rectifiable under section 154 of the Act. The Tribunal found that the mistake was purely arithmetical, evident from the return and accompanying documents, resulting in taxation of an amount not actually earned. It held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the rectification on the ground that the mistake arose from the revised return and directing the assessee to seek relief under section 119(2)(b), which was inapplicable. The AO was directed to rectify the total income by excluding Rs. 7,40,474 and recompute the income accordingly, granting consequential relief including refund and interest as per law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.