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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
The ITAT upheld rejection of the assessee's books of account under section 145(3) because verifiable labour records, third-party confirmations, project-wise details and reconciliations were not produced, and major expenses rested on self-made vouchers with no credible support. Once the accounts were rejected, profit had to be estimated on a fair and reasonable basis, but the Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's 8% rate excessive because it relied on non-comparable listed companies and a section 44AD benchmark that could not be mechanically applied beyond the prescribed turnover limit. Considering the nature of the sub-contract business, remote working conditions and defects in the records, profit was estimated at 5% of turnover.
The ITAT upheld rejection of the assessee's books of account under section 145(3) because verifiable labour records, third-party confirmations, project-wise details and reconciliations were not produced, and major expenses rested on self-made vouchers with no credible support. Once the accounts were rejected, profit had to be estimated on a fair and reasonable basis, but the Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's 8% rate excessive because it relied on non-comparable listed companies and a section 44AD benchmark that could not be mechanically applied beyond the prescribed turnover limit. Considering the nature of the sub-contract business, remote working conditions and defects in the records, profit was estimated at 5% of turnover.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.