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 and deleted the addition u/s 28 arising from the AO's application of average gross profit (GP) on item-wise Cascade tag prices and the 50% adjustment to such tag prices. The Tribunal held that a GP rate of 15.65% on cost, derived on an aggregate basis from comparable cases, was reasonable and already aligned with the assessee's overall GP of 16.86%. It ruled that applying this aggregate GP to compute item-wise margins was irrational, given varied profitability and even loss-making items. ITAT accepted that Cascade tag prices were only indicative, with actual sale prices correctly recorded in regular books, and found no incriminating material to justify additions.
ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal and deleted the addition u/s 28 arising from the AO's application of average gross profit (GP) on item-wise Cascade tag prices and the 50% adjustment to such tag prices. The Tribunal held that a GP rate of 15.65% on cost, derived on an aggregate basis from comparable cases, was reasonable and already aligned with the assessee's overall GP of 16.86%. It ruled that applying this aggregate GP to compute item-wise margins was irrational, given varied profitability and even loss-making items. ITAT accepted that Cascade tag prices were only indicative, with actual sale prices correctly recorded in regular books, and found no incriminating material to justify additions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.