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 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96536 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 determination that the impugned payments by the assessee-hospital to the doctors constituted professional fees and not salaries, finding the contractual relationship to be that of independent professionals (doctors free to practice elsewhere, not entitled to provident fund or terminal benefits, and not exclusively engaged). Revenue failed to controvert these factual findings; accordingly, the Tribunal held that withholding under s.192 was inapplicable and the provisions of ss.201(1)/201(1A) could not be invoked to fasten liability on the assessee. The AO's demand based on salary treatment was set aside and the appeal allowed in favour of the assessee-hospital.
ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s determination that the impugned payments by the assessee-hospital to the doctors constituted professional fees and not salaries, finding the contractual relationship to be that of independent professionals (doctors free to practice elsewhere, not entitled to provident fund or terminal benefits, and not exclusively engaged). Revenue failed to controvert these factual findings; accordingly, the Tribunal held that withholding under s.192 was inapplicable and the provisions of ss.201(1)/201(1A) could not be invoked to fasten liability on the assessee. The AO's demand based on salary treatment was set aside and the appeal allowed in favour of the assessee-hospital.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.