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 as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C in respect of alleged furniture expenses incurred by the assessee's spouse. The Tribunal noted that, as per the capital account and balance sheet as on 31.03.2017, the spouse possessed sufficient funds to meet the furniture expenditure of Rs. 17,50,000/-. In the absence of any rebuttal or contrary material from the Revenue, the explanation could not be discarded. The addition was held to be arbitrary, misconceived and unsustainable in law.
ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the addition made as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C in respect of alleged furniture expenses incurred by the assessee's spouse. The Tribunal noted that, as per the capital account and balance sheet as on 31.03.2017, the spouse possessed sufficient funds to meet the furniture expenditure of Rs. 17,50,000/-. In the absence of any rebuttal or contrary material from the Revenue, the explanation could not be discarded. The addition was held to be arbitrary, misconceived and unsustainable in law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.