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" ?
Allowability of contractual damages claimed as expenses under section 37 was decided by ITAT: the Tribunal held that sums deducted by the government for late supply were compensatory damages for breach of contract and not payments for an "offence" or activity prohibited by law, so Explanation to section 37 did not apply. The Tribunal reasoned that mere failure to meet contractual timelines does not constitute a crime; the payments were incurred wholly and exclusively for business and therefore deductible as business expenditure, allowing the appeal and setting aside the disallowance.
Allowability of contractual damages claimed as expenses under section 37 was decided by ITAT: the Tribunal held that sums deducted by the government for late supply were compensatory damages for breach of contract and not payments for an "offence" or activity prohibited by law, so Explanation to section 37 did not apply. The Tribunal reasoned that mere failure to meet contractual timelines does not constitute a crime; the payments were incurred wholly and exclusively for business and therefore deductible as business expenditure, allowing the appeal and setting aside the disallowance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.