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" ?
HC dismissed the revenue's addition under s.68 and allowed the assessee's appeal. The court held that where share allotment and premium were recorded contemporaneously with statutory filings and independent verification identified subscribers and traced funds, the AO could not, merely because directors failed to attend summons under s.131, conclude absence of any explanation under s.68. Applying the second proviso to s.68, the tribunal's and appellate authority's concurrent factual findings-that subscribers were identified, source of funds was established, and explanations were sufficient-were not perverse. In those circumstances the AO's subjective disbelief was unsustainable and the addition as unexplained credit was reversed.
HC dismissed the revenue's addition under s.68 and allowed the assessee's appeal. The court held that where share allotment and premium were recorded contemporaneously with statutory filings and independent verification identified subscribers and traced funds, the AO could not, merely because directors failed to attend summons under s.131, conclude absence of any explanation under s.68. Applying the second proviso to s.68, the tribunal's and appellate authority's concurrent factual findings-that subscribers were identified, source of funds was established, and explanations were sufficient-were not perverse. In those circumstances the AO's subjective disbelief was unsustainable and the addition as unexplained credit was reversed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.