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 allowed the assessee's appeal and quashed the revisional order passed under s.263. The Tribunal held that the CIT failed to demonstrate any substantive material showing the impugned receipts were not professional income or that they fell within s.69/69A/69B; accordingly there was no justification to invoke s.115BBE. The AO had issued a s.142(1) questionnaire, the assessee furnished specific replies, and the AO accepted the claim and taxed the receipts at the normal rate. Mere absence of extended discussion in the assessment order did not render the order erroneous or lead to s.263 action. The revisional order was therefore set aside.
ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal and quashed the revisional order passed under s.263. The Tribunal held that the CIT failed to demonstrate any substantive material showing the impugned receipts were not professional income or that they fell within s.69/69A/69B; accordingly there was no justification to invoke s.115BBE. The AO had issued a s.142(1) questionnaire, the assessee furnished specific replies, and the AO accepted the claim and taxed the receipts at the normal rate. Mere absence of extended discussion in the assessment order did not render the order erroneous or lead to s.263 action. The revisional order was therefore set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.