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" ?
HC dismissed the appeal and affirmed ITAT's decision that the gain on the vintage motorcar is taxable as capital gains because the car did not qualify as a "personal effect." The Court held that under the statutory definition of capital asset personal effects are excluded only if an intimate connection with personal or household use is established; mere capability or ownership of a car does not suffice. The Assessee failed to adduce evidence of personal use and relied on irrelevant factors considered by CIT(A). Material indicators (use of employer's car, absence of occasional use, non-parking at residence, no maintenance expenditure) supported ITAT's factual finding, and the substantial question of law was answered against the Assessee.
HC dismissed the appeal and affirmed ITAT's decision that the gain on the vintage motorcar is taxable as capital gains because the car did not qualify as a "personal effect." The Court held that under the statutory definition of capital asset personal effects are excluded only if an intimate connection with personal or household use is established; mere capability or ownership of a car does not suffice. The Assessee failed to adduce evidence of personal use and relied on irrelevant factors considered by CIT(A). Material indicators (use of employer's car, absence of occasional use, non-parking at residence, no maintenance expenditure) supported ITAT's factual finding, and the substantial question of law was answered against the Assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.