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" ?
Penalty under s. 271B for failure to obtain a tax audit report was challenged on the ground that the assessee was not liable to audit under s. 44AB. Applying CBDT Circular No. 452 dated 17-03-1986, which is binding on the tax authorities, the forum held that the assessee's role was akin to a kachha arahtia/broker and only brokerage constituted turnover for s. 44AB purposes; since brokerage did not exceed the statutory threshold of Rs. 40 lakhs, audit was not mandatory. Consequently, the penalty of Rs. 1,50,000 imposed under s. 271B was deleted and the appeal was allowed - ITAT
Penalty under s. 271B for failure to obtain a tax audit report was challenged on the ground that the assessee was not liable to audit under s. 44AB. Applying CBDT Circular No. 452 dated 17-03-1986, which is binding on the tax authorities, the forum held that the assessee's role was akin to a kachha arahtia/broker and only brokerage constituted turnover for s. 44AB purposes; since brokerage did not exceed the statutory threshold of Rs. 40 lakhs, audit was not mandatory. Consequently, the penalty of Rs. 1,50,000 imposed under s. 271B was deleted and the appeal was allowed - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.