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 allowed the appellant's appeal, setting aside the AO's and CIT(A)'s additions under s.69 (undisclosed investment/payment for land and house construction) and the consequent taxation under s.115BBE. The Tribunal held that the AO lacked material to discredit the books of account, that admissions in the search statement were not conclusive and were rebutted by contemporaneous documentary and bank evidence, and that the Department failed to discharge the onus under s.69 or make independent inquiries. The findings of AO/CIT(A) were quashed and the matter remitted with a direction to delete the impugned additions.
ITAT allowed the appellant's appeal, setting aside the AO's and CIT(A)'s additions under s.69 (undisclosed investment/payment for land and house construction) and the consequent taxation under s.115BBE. The Tribunal held that the AO lacked material to discredit the books of account, that admissions in the search statement were not conclusive and were rebutted by contemporaneous documentary and bank evidence, and that the Department failed to discharge the onus under s.69 or make independent inquiries. The findings of AO/CIT(A) were quashed and the matter remitted with a direction to delete the impugned additions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.