Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
ITAT held that interest on fixed deposits and related receipts were taxable as income from other sources because the maintenance clauses in the sale deed and co-developer agreement did not create diversion of income by overriding title; the funds and accrued interest remained under the assessee's control, so the use of interest for maintenance was only application of income after accrual. It also held that maintenance and administrative did not have the direct and exclusive nexus required for deduction against such interest income, so the disallowance was sustained. However, the Tribunal accepted that a claim under section 80P(2)(d) could not be denied merely because the return was filed under section 139(4), and directed allowance after hearing.
ITAT held that interest on fixed deposits and related receipts were taxable as income from other sources because the maintenance clauses in the sale deed and co-developer agreement did not create diversion of income by overriding title; the funds and accrued interest remained under the assessee's control, so the use of interest for maintenance was only application of income after accrual. It also held that maintenance and administrative did not have the direct and exclusive nexus required for deduction against such interest income, so the disallowance was sustained. However, the Tribunal accepted that a claim under section 80P(2)(d) could not be denied merely because the return was filed under section 139(4), and directed allowance after hearing.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
