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" ?
Rectification was allowed to permit set off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation where a mistake apparent on the face of the record rendered the return inconsistent with an earlier rectified income figure. Tribunal held that although a claim for set off was not made in the original return and precedent bars allowing such a claim by letter during assessment, the revised returned income from the rectification order must govern when no fresh additions were made in the assessment conducted after seizure proceedings; consequently the returned income was to be treated like the earlier rectified return and the appeal was allowed.
Rectification was allowed to permit set off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation where a mistake apparent on the face of the record rendered the return inconsistent with an earlier rectified income figure. Tribunal held that although a claim for set off was not made in the original return and precedent bars allowing such a claim by letter during assessment, the revised returned income from the rectification order must govern when no fresh additions were made in the assessment conducted after seizure proceedings; consequently the returned income was to be treated like the earlier rectified return and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.