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" ?
The article examines denial of trust exemption where purchases of shares from specified persons may trigger prohibition; it explains that the prohibition applies only if the trust purchased shares directly from persons who held a substantial interest (defined by control of about 20% voting power) or through entities controlled by them. The tribunal found sellers did not possess such substantial interest or control, noted the Assessing Officer conflated distinct provisions, and concluded the prohibition was inapplicable; the appeal by the trust was allowed.
The article examines denial of trust exemption where purchases of shares from specified persons may trigger prohibition; it explains that the prohibition applies only if the trust purchased shares directly from persons who held a substantial interest (defined by control of about 20% voting power) or through entities controlled by them. The tribunal found sellers did not possess such substantial interest or control, noted the Assessing Officer conflated distinct provisions, and concluded the prohibition was inapplicable; the appeal by the trust was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.