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 partly allowed the appeal in respect of additions under s.69A r.w.s. and s.115BBE arising from a search at common family premises. The AO's jewellery additions were deleted by the CIT(A) on factual analysis that the jewellery belonged to the family; Revenue did not challenge that finding, rendering it final. As to wrist watches, the AO had attributed all watches to the assessee, but CIT(A) found they were located in a shared residence occupied by multiple family members and, given the family's status and absence of purchase particulars, declined to uphold additions based on contemporary market valuation. The net result is deletion of jewellery additions and rejection of watch additions, with the appeal therefore partly allowed.
ITAT partly allowed the appeal in respect of additions under s.69A r.w.s. and s.115BBE arising from a search at common family premises. The AO's jewellery additions were deleted by the CIT(A) on factual analysis that the jewellery belonged to the family; Revenue did not challenge that finding, rendering it final. As to wrist watches, the AO had attributed all watches to the assessee, but CIT(A) found they were located in a shared residence occupied by multiple family members and, given the family's status and absence of purchase particulars, declined to uphold additions based on contemporary market valuation. The net result is deletion of jewellery additions and rejection of watch additions, with the appeal therefore partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.