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 HC allowed the revenue's appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and restored the matter for factual determination by the income-tax authorities. The court held that lower appellate fora (CIT(A) and ITAT) had adjudicated only the quantum of depreciation but had not addressed the pivotal factual question whether the respondent was the owner of the drilling ship. Ownership was characterized as a question of fact best resolved by authorities under the Income-tax Act, and the Single Judge's interference on that factual issue was held to be unjustified. Consequential directions were that entitlement to depreciation be determined afresh by the appropriate tax authorities.
The HC allowed the revenue's appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and restored the matter for factual determination by the income-tax authorities. The court held that lower appellate fora (CIT(A) and ITAT) had adjudicated only the quantum of depreciation but had not addressed the pivotal factual question whether the respondent was the owner of the drilling ship. Ownership was characterized as a question of fact best resolved by authorities under the Income-tax Act, and the Single Judge's interference on that factual issue was held to be unjustified. Consequential directions were that entitlement to depreciation be determined afresh by the appropriate tax authorities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.