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 allowed the taxpayer's appeal and directed deletion of the disputed addition of Rs.57,21,300 which had been made by CPC and confirmed by the first appellate authority, finding the figure in the initial Form 10B to be an inadvertent arithmetical error corrected by a revised Form 10B (and supporting Form 10BB) reflecting deemed income under section 11(3) of the Act as Rs.2,06,06,960. The Tribunal further accepted the taxpayer's alternative contention that the Form 10B filing requirement cannot be negated by reference to the Rs.5 crore turnover threshold, construing Rule 17B as not subject to that monetary limit, and directed the assessing officer to delete the impugned addition accordingly.
ITAT allowed the taxpayer's appeal and directed deletion of the disputed addition of Rs.57,21,300 which had been made by CPC and confirmed by the first appellate authority, finding the figure in the initial Form 10B to be an inadvertent arithmetical error corrected by a revised Form 10B (and supporting Form 10BB) reflecting deemed income under section 11(3) of the Act as Rs.2,06,06,960. The Tribunal further accepted the taxpayer's alternative contention that the Form 10B filing requirement cannot be negated by reference to the Rs.5 crore turnover threshold, construing Rule 17B as not subject to that monetary limit, and directed the assessing officer to delete the impugned addition accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.