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 Revenue's appeal and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition under s.56(2)(viib), holding that valuation by DCF is a technical exercise to be respected absent proof of perversity or mala fides. The Revenue failed to adduce material demonstrating that the assessee's DCF inputs were inherently manipulated; subsequent variance between projections and actuals alone did not render the valuation unreliable. The tribunal noted shares were issued to existing group entities with no challenge to their identity or creditworthiness and that s.56(2)(viib) targets colourable inflows. AO erred in substituting NAV for DCF based solely on later divergence, so the addition was disallowed.
ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition under s.56(2)(viib), holding that valuation by DCF is a technical exercise to be respected absent proof of perversity or mala fides. The Revenue failed to adduce material demonstrating that the assessee's DCF inputs were inherently manipulated; subsequent variance between projections and actuals alone did not render the valuation unreliable. The tribunal noted shares were issued to existing group entities with no challenge to their identity or creditworthiness and that s.56(2)(viib) targets colourable inflows. AO erred in substituting NAV for DCF based solely on later divergence, so the addition was disallowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.