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 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Supreme Court examined the tax treatment of amounts recovered by an employer from employees as provident or ESI contributions, noting such sums are taxable as income when received. The Court explained that deduction under the employer-deduction provision is available only if the employer credits the employees' contributions to the relevant fund by the 'due date', which the Explanation defines as the date required under the applicable Act, rule, order or notification. The Court identified two conflicting interpretations: one requiring crediting by the statutory fund due date for deduction, and an alternative treating employee and employer contributions alike under the non-obstante clause permitting deduction if deposited by return due date.
Supreme Court examined the tax treatment of amounts recovered by an employer from employees as provident or ESI contributions, noting such sums are taxable as income when received. The Court explained that deduction under the employer-deduction provision is available only if the employer credits the employees' contributions to the relevant fund by the 'due date', which the Explanation defines as the date required under the applicable Act, rule, order or notification. The Court identified two conflicting interpretations: one requiring crediting by the statutory fund due date for deduction, and an alternative treating employee and employer contributions alike under the non-obstante clause permitting deduction if deposited by return due date.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.