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, deleting the addition made by the AO on account of alleged under-declaration of agricultural expenses. The AO had estimated agricultural expenditure at 40% of gross agricultural receipts solely by relying on an earlier ITAT ruling in a third-party case, without disputing the assessee's disclosed receipts or the evidentiary support for expenses at 32.83%. ITAT held that agricultural expenditure is fact-specific and cannot be mechanically fixed at a uniform percentage, and that the AO's action was based on mere presumption without any corroborative material to show higher actual expenditure. Consequently, the impugned addition was unsustainable and stood fully deleted.
ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the addition made by the AO on account of alleged under-declaration of agricultural expenses. The AO had estimated agricultural expenditure at 40% of gross agricultural receipts solely by relying on an earlier ITAT ruling in a third-party case, without disputing the assessee's disclosed receipts or the evidentiary support for expenses at 32.83%. ITAT held that agricultural expenditure is fact-specific and cannot be mechanically fixed at a uniform percentage, and that the AO's action was based on mere presumption without any corroborative material to show higher actual expenditure. Consequently, the impugned addition was unsustainable and stood fully deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.