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 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT upheld the assessee-company's computation of LTCG on sale of BILT shares by adopting the cost of acquisition and period of holding of the previous owner, with indexation from 1.4.1981 based on FMV as on that date. It rejected the AO's adoption of historical cost and consequent conversion of the declared long-term capital loss into taxable gain. The Tribunal held that, pursuant to valid amalgamation and demerger complying with s. 2(1B) and s. 2(19AA), the assessee was entitled to step into the shoes of the previous owner for cost and holding-period purposes. The assessee's LTCG/LTCL claim was allowed and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
ITAT upheld the assessee-company's computation of LTCG on sale of BILT shares by adopting the cost of acquisition and period of holding of the previous owner, with indexation from 1.4.1981 based on FMV as on that date. It rejected the AO's adoption of historical cost and consequent conversion of the declared long-term capital loss into taxable gain. The Tribunal held that, pursuant to valid amalgamation and demerger complying with s. 2(1B) and s. 2(19AA), the assessee was entitled to step into the shoes of the previous owner for cost and holding-period purposes. The assessee's LTCG/LTCL claim was allowed and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.