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 held that the addition of 5% of total sales consideration as estimated profit on alleged unexplained cash credits u/s 68 was unsustainable. It found that the CIT(A) had directed the AO to make this addition purely on presumptions and surmises, without any cogent basis or supporting material, despite confirmation of the transactions by the buyer in response to summons u/s 131 and production of evidences. Relying on the HC decision in a similar fact situation, ITAT set aside the part of the CIT(A)'s order sustaining the 5% addition, dismissed the revenue's appeal, and allowed the assessee's cross-objection.
ITAT held that the addition of 5% of total sales consideration as estimated profit on alleged unexplained cash credits u/s 68 was unsustainable. It found that the CIT(A) had directed the AO to make this addition purely on presumptions and surmises, without any cogent basis or supporting material, despite confirmation of the transactions by the buyer in response to summons u/s 131 and production of evidences. Relying on the HC decision in a similar fact situation, ITAT set aside the part of the CIT(A)'s order sustaining the 5% addition, dismissed the revenue's appeal, and allowed the assessee's cross-objection.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.