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 upheld the CIT(A)'s relief largely in favour of the assessee: additions founded solely on WhatsApp messages and seized Excel records were deleted where evidence showed the assessee acted as consultant and was not owner, and where amounts appeared already taxed or attributable to third parties; unexplained expenditure under s.69C was deleted because seized documents disclosed the source; a 30% expense allocation on unaccounted receipts was accepted based on past financials and seized material; additions based solely on an exculpatory statement were deleted for lack of corroboration. However, the tribunal sustained the CIT(A)'s disallowance of rent under s.37(1) for want of documentary proof that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively for business.
ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s relief largely in favour of the assessee: additions founded solely on WhatsApp messages and seized Excel records were deleted where evidence showed the assessee acted as consultant and was not owner, and where amounts appeared already taxed or attributable to third parties; unexplained expenditure under s.69C was deleted because seized documents disclosed the source; a 30% expense allocation on unaccounted receipts was accepted based on past financials and seized material; additions based solely on an exculpatory statement were deleted for lack of corroboration. However, the tribunal sustained the CIT(A)'s disallowance of rent under s.37(1) for want of documentary proof that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively for business.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.