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" ?
After admitting an additional ground for deduction under section 32AC, the ITAT held that the appellate authority had to decide the claim on merits and could not refuse it merely because it was raised belatedly or on conduct-based objections already waived at admission. It further held that Goetz India Ltd. did not limit the appellate authority's power to entertain a fresh statutory claim supported by documents and capable of verification. However, because the remand report did not clearly confirm that the assets were new plant and machinery or that all statutory conditions were met, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
After admitting an additional ground for deduction under section 32AC, the ITAT held that the appellate authority had to decide the claim on merits and could not refuse it merely because it was raised belatedly or on conduct-based objections already waived at admission. It further held that Goetz India Ltd. did not limit the appellate authority's power to entertain a fresh statutory claim supported by documents and capable of verification. However, because the remand report did not clearly confirm that the assets were new plant and machinery or that all statutory conditions were met, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.