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" ?
Land held as stock-in-trade in a property development business was outside the scope of section 50C, because that provision applies only to transfer of a capital asset. The Tribunal found that the development agreement, power of attorney, revenue records and balance sheets showed the assessee was acting as a land developer and had not acquired title to the entire parcel. It also noted that the same transaction had already been disclosed as business turnover and accepted as business income, so applying capital gains treatment again would amount to impermissible double taxation. The addition as long-term capital gain was deleted.
Land held as stock-in-trade in a property development business was outside the scope of section 50C, because that provision applies only to transfer of a capital asset. The Tribunal found that the development agreement, power of attorney, revenue records and balance sheets showed the assessee was acting as a land developer and had not acquired title to the entire parcel. It also noted that the same transaction had already been disclosed as business turnover and accepted as business income, so applying capital gains treatment again would amount to impermissible double taxation. The addition as long-term capital gain was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.