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 dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that additions under s. 69C were unwarranted. The AO had accepted the assessee's sales of bulls to slaughterhouses but disallowed the cash payments claimed as purchases, thereby treating Rs. 8.89 crore of cash withdrawals as unexplained expenditure. The Tribunal found this approach inconsistent: acceptance of sales logically required acceptance of corresponding purchase outlays necessary to carry on the admitted trading business. The AO could have negated both legs as sham, but did not; rejecting only purchases lacked evidentiary basis. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s deletion of the s. 69C addition was affirmed and the Revenue's appeal dismissed.
The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that additions under s. 69C were unwarranted. The AO had accepted the assessee's sales of bulls to slaughterhouses but disallowed the cash payments claimed as purchases, thereby treating Rs. 8.89 crore of cash withdrawals as unexplained expenditure. The Tribunal found this approach inconsistent: acceptance of sales logically required acceptance of corresponding purchase outlays necessary to carry on the admitted trading business. The AO could have negated both legs as sham, but did not; rejecting only purchases lacked evidentiary basis. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s deletion of the s. 69C addition was affirmed and the Revenue's appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.