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" ?
Receipts claimed as advances for sale of land were taxed as income from other sources because the assessee could not establish ownership, possession, or any surviving contingent right in the land, and the factual basis for treating the sums as capital receipts failed. The Tribunal held that, absent any proved property right or transfer, the amounts were taxable in the hands of the assessee. It also sustained reopening under section 147 for A.Y. 2009-10, holding that an error in the recorded quantum of receipt did not undermine the underlying reason to believe, since the MOU, the deal value, and the receipt itself remained undisputed.
Receipts claimed as advances for sale of land were taxed as income from other sources because the assessee could not establish ownership, possession, or any surviving contingent right in the land, and the factual basis for treating the sums as capital receipts failed. The Tribunal held that, absent any proved property right or transfer, the amounts were taxable in the hands of the assessee. It also sustained reopening under section 147 for A.Y. 2009-10, holding that an error in the recorded quantum of receipt did not undermine the underlying reason to believe, since the MOU, the deal value, and the receipt itself remained undisputed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.