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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
ITAT held that the PCIT's revision u/s. 263 was misplaced and set aside: the AO had made specific enquiries into depreciation claimed u/s. 32 on immovable properties partly let out and had examined the assessee's detailed replies, taking a legally permissible view accepting depreciation for the period properties were employed in business while rental income was offered for the let-out period. Tribunal found there was neither lack nor inadequacy of inquiry by the AO, thus jurisdiction u/s. 263 could not be invoked. On merits the assessee satisfactorily demonstrated entitlement to depreciation for business use periods; the appeal was allowed and the s. 263 action quashed.
ITAT held that the PCIT's revision u/s. 263 was misplaced and set aside: the AO had made specific enquiries into depreciation claimed u/s. 32 on immovable properties partly let out and had examined the assessee's detailed replies, taking a legally permissible view accepting depreciation for the period properties were employed in business while rental income was offered for the let-out period. Tribunal found there was neither lack nor inadequacy of inquiry by the AO, thus jurisdiction u/s. 263 could not be invoked. On merits the assessee satisfactorily demonstrated entitlement to depreciation for business use periods; the appeal was allowed and the s. 263 action quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.