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" ?
Penalty paid to RBI for breach of regulatory directions was treated as a regulatory levy and not as expenditure for an offence or infraction of law under Explanation 2 to section 37(1), so the deduction was allowed. CSR expenditure was disallowed because the record did not show that it exceeded the statutory CSR obligation, and prior decisions based on the pre-amendment position did not apply after insertion of Explanation 2. The Tribunal also reiterated that appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims not made before the Assessing Officer, so the bad-debt recovery issue was remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the PSLC taxability issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Penalty paid to RBI for breach of regulatory directions was treated as a regulatory levy and not as expenditure for an offence or infraction of law under Explanation 2 to section 37(1), so the deduction was allowed. CSR expenditure was disallowed because the record did not show that it exceeded the statutory CSR obligation, and prior decisions based on the pre-amendment position did not apply after insertion of Explanation 2. The Tribunal also reiterated that appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims not made before the Assessing Officer, so the bad-debt recovery issue was remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the PSLC taxability issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.