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" ?
Dominant issue: Whether the assessing officer's allowance of deduction under s.80P(2)(a)(i)/80P(2)(d) for interest and dividend from co-operative banks was an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction warranting revision under s.263. Reasoning: The AO made specific enquiries, verified records, and adopted a plausible, debatable view; the issue is covered by an earlier consistent finding favourable to the assessee. Outcome: The revisionary jurisdiction under s.263 cannot be invoked as the AO's order, though potentially prejudicial to Revenue, is not erroneous; appeal allowed for assessee. - ITAT
Dominant issue: Whether the assessing officer's allowance of deduction under s.80P(2)(a)(i)/80P(2)(d) for interest and dividend from co-operative banks was an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction warranting revision under s.263. Reasoning: The AO made specific enquiries, verified records, and adopted a plausible, debatable view; the issue is covered by an earlier consistent finding favourable to the assessee. Outcome: The revisionary jurisdiction under s.263 cannot be invoked as the AO's order, though potentially prejudicial to Revenue, is not erroneous; appeal allowed for assessee. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.