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" ?
ITAT dismissed the assessee's appeals in part. It held the assessee cannot claim deduction under s.80IA(4) for work done on projects awarded to two JVs because the JVs, as the enterprises/developers, are entitled to the deduction and the same project cannot yield duplicate s.80IA benefits to both JV and constituent; accordingly the s.80IA claim in respect of JV-executed works is disallowed. Deduction under s.80IAB was refused as the assessee was a contractor, not the government-notified SEZ developer. The s.14A disallowance was upheld in proportion to exempt JV profits. Certain specified contracts that did not create new infrastructure were excluded from s.80IA relief; AO directed to exclude profits from those three projects.
ITAT dismissed the assessee's appeals in part. It held the assessee cannot claim deduction under s.80IA(4) for work done on projects awarded to two JVs because the JVs, as the enterprises/developers, are entitled to the deduction and the same project cannot yield duplicate s.80IA benefits to both JV and constituent; accordingly the s.80IA claim in respect of JV-executed works is disallowed. Deduction under s.80IAB was refused as the assessee was a contractor, not the government-notified SEZ developer. The s.14A disallowance was upheld in proportion to exempt JV profits. Certain specified contracts that did not create new infrastructure were excluded from s.80IA relief; AO directed to exclude profits from those three projects.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.