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 upheld the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under s.263 of the I.T. Act, finding the assessing officer's acceptance of claimed long-term capital gains purportedly exempt under s.10(38) to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue because he failed to verify crucial transactional particulars - mode of trade, dematerialization and debit/credit entries in the taxpayer's demat account - before allowing exemption on penny-stock transactions. The Tribunal endorsed that s.263 may be invoked even where facts are disclosed or issues are debatable if the AO did not examine them as per law, and consequently dismissed the taxpayer's appeal.
The ITAT upheld the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under s.263 of the I.T. Act, finding the assessing officer's acceptance of claimed long-term capital gains purportedly exempt under s.10(38) to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue because he failed to verify crucial transactional particulars - mode of trade, dematerialization and debit/credit entries in the taxpayer's demat account - before allowing exemption on penny-stock transactions. The Tribunal endorsed that s.263 may be invoked even where facts are disclosed or issues are debatable if the AO did not examine them as per law, and consequently dismissed the taxpayer's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
