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" ?
Disallowance under s.14A r/w r.8D was examined where the taxpayer had made a suo motu disallowance against exempt income. Since r.8D is not automatic, the AO could invoke it only after examining the taxpayer's accounts and recording satisfaction under s.14A(2) that the taxpayer's claim was incorrect; a mere remark that the disallowance was "very low" did not meet this statutory requirement. Applying this mandatory satisfaction test, as reiterated in Maxopp, the r.8D-based incremental disallowance was held bad in law and deleted, restricting disallowance to the taxpayer's suo motu amount; the appeal was allowed. - ITAT
Disallowance under s.14A r/w r.8D was examined where the taxpayer had made a suo motu disallowance against exempt income. Since r.8D is not automatic, the AO could invoke it only after examining the taxpayer's accounts and recording satisfaction under s.14A(2) that the taxpayer's claim was incorrect; a mere remark that the disallowance was "very low" did not meet this statutory requirement. Applying this mandatory satisfaction test, as reiterated in Maxopp, the r.8D-based incremental disallowance was held bad in law and deleted, restricting disallowance to the taxpayer's suo motu amount; the appeal was allowed. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.