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 allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition under s.56(2)(viib) in respect of alleged excess share premium. The Tribunal held that the assessee validly exercised its statutory option to adopt the DCF method under Rule 11UA(2)(b) for valuation of unquoted shares, and the AO and CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction to substitute a different valuation. The Tribunal found the assessee's valuation justified and in accordance with law, set aside the impugned additions, and directed that the excess share premium be excluded from income. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition under s.56(2)(viib) in respect of alleged excess share premium. The Tribunal held that the assessee validly exercised its statutory option to adopt the DCF method under Rule 11UA(2)(b) for valuation of unquoted shares, and the AO and CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction to substitute a different valuation. The Tribunal found the assessee's valuation justified and in accordance with law, set aside the impugned additions, and directed that the excess share premium be excluded from income. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.