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 affirmed reopening under s.148, holding that credible information and unexplained credits warranted assessment under s.68; the assessee's failure to furnish demanded balance-sheet and specific bank statements constituted intentional omission, rendering entries unexplained and justifying additions. The Tribunal rejected CIT(A)'s view that s.153C applied, endorsing s.148 as the proper provision, and declined to admit fresh submissions not pressed before it. ITAT reiterated that books showing loans/borrowings must satisfy s.68 even if squared up within the year, and accepted doctrines such as lifting the corporate veil and substance-over-form where accommodation entries or sham transactions are suspected. Selection for full scrutiny under CBDT criteria was held permissible.
ITAT affirmed reopening under s.148, holding that credible information and unexplained credits warranted assessment under s.68; the assessee's failure to furnish demanded balance-sheet and specific bank statements constituted intentional omission, rendering entries unexplained and justifying additions. The Tribunal rejected CIT(A)'s view that s.153C applied, endorsing s.148 as the proper provision, and declined to admit fresh submissions not pressed before it. ITAT reiterated that books showing loans/borrowings must satisfy s.68 even if squared up within the year, and accepted doctrines such as lifting the corporate veil and substance-over-form where accommodation entries or sham transactions are suspected. Selection for full scrutiny under CBDT criteria was held permissible.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.