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 immovable property purchased by the assessee was agricultural land on the date of transfer, as evidenced by the registered sale deed and Form 7 extract, and not converted into non-agricultural land. The mere levy of higher stamp duty by the Sub-Registrar, based on a draft AUDA TP Scheme and non-agricultural jantri rates, could not alter the legal character of the land for purposes of the IT Act. ITAT further found the AO's assumption of 40% acquisition by AUDA to be factually incorrect, the scheme being only in draft and unapproved form. As the assessee's declared consideration exceeded the applicable agricultural jantri value, no benefit or understatement arose so as to trigger s.56(2)(x). The addition made under s.56(2)(x) was therefore deleted and the assessee's appeal allowed.
ITAT held that the immovable property purchased by the assessee was agricultural land on the date of transfer, as evidenced by the registered sale deed and Form 7 extract, and not converted into non-agricultural land. The mere levy of higher stamp duty by the Sub-Registrar, based on a draft AUDA TP Scheme and non-agricultural jantri rates, could not alter the legal character of the land for purposes of the IT Act. ITAT further found the AO's assumption of 40% acquisition by AUDA to be factually incorrect, the scheme being only in draft and unapproved form. As the assessee's declared consideration exceeded the applicable agricultural jantri value, no benefit or understatement arose so as to trigger s.56(2)(x). The addition made under s.56(2)(x) was therefore deleted and the assessee's appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.