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" ?
Whether exemption could be allowed where the taxpayer mistakenly claimed deduction under an inapplicable provision and the CPC denied it in intimation u/s 143(1) was the dominant issue. Since the taxpayer already held approval u/s 10(23C)(iv) for the relevant period, the wrong claim u/s 10(46) was treated as an inadvertent error not defeating a legitimate statutory exemption; reliance was placed on precedent that bona fide omission/mistake in claiming exemption should not bar revision/correction when entitlement exists in law. Accordingly, the appellate authority's grant of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iv) was upheld and the revenue's appeal was dismissed. - ITAT
Whether exemption could be allowed where the taxpayer mistakenly claimed deduction under an inapplicable provision and the CPC denied it in intimation u/s 143(1) was the dominant issue. Since the taxpayer already held approval u/s 10(23C)(iv) for the relevant period, the wrong claim u/s 10(46) was treated as an inadvertent error not defeating a legitimate statutory exemption; reliance was placed on precedent that bona fide omission/mistake in claiming exemption should not bar revision/correction when entitlement exists in law. Accordingly, the appellate authority's grant of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iv) was upheld and the revenue's appeal was dismissed. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.