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 appeal and set aside the Principal Commissioner's revisional order under s.263. The Tribunal held that s.263 is confined to correcting patent errors causing prejudice to the Revenue and does not permit reappreciation of evidence or substitution of the AO's view; Explanation 2 applies only where enquiry or verification is absent. The Principal Commissioner's premise that the taxpayer recovered ESOP costs was a factual misconception: ledger, financials and TDS reconciliation demonstrated only statutory TDS pass-through, not reimbursement, negating any prejudice to the Revenue. On merits the ESOP discount was held deductible under s.37(1) as employee remuneration incurred wholly and exclusively for business, making the AO's acceptance a tenable view.
ITAT allowed the appeal and set aside the Principal Commissioner's revisional order under s.263. The Tribunal held that s.263 is confined to correcting patent errors causing prejudice to the Revenue and does not permit reappreciation of evidence or substitution of the AO's view; Explanation 2 applies only where enquiry or verification is absent. The Principal Commissioner's premise that the taxpayer recovered ESOP costs was a factual misconception: ledger, financials and TDS reconciliation demonstrated only statutory TDS pass-through, not reimbursement, negating any prejudice to the Revenue. On merits the ESOP discount was held deductible under s.37(1) as employee remuneration incurred wholly and exclusively for business, making the AO's acceptance a tenable view.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.