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 allows the appeal, sets aside the CIT(E)'s order rejecting application under s.80G(5), and directs reconsideration of the application afresh. The Tribunal held the assessee's dominant and actual activities are charitable, the allegedly religious object was neither acted upon nor financed, and registration under s.12AB(1)(b) confirms charitable status; consequently denial of s.80G approval on that sole ground was inconsistent. ITAT construed s.80G(5B) as permitting de minimis expenditure on religious activities (subject to its threshold) and required verification of actual expenditure before refusal. Matter is remitted to the CIT(E) for fresh decision consistent with these principles; appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
ITAT allows the appeal, sets aside the CIT(E)'s order rejecting application under s.80G(5), and directs reconsideration of the application afresh. The Tribunal held the assessee's dominant and actual activities are charitable, the allegedly religious object was neither acted upon nor financed, and registration under s.12AB(1)(b) confirms charitable status; consequently denial of s.80G approval on that sole ground was inconsistent. ITAT construed s.80G(5B) as permitting de minimis expenditure on religious activities (subject to its threshold) and required verification of actual expenditure before refusal. Matter is remitted to the CIT(E) for fresh decision consistent with these principles; appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.