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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
Binding coordinate Bench orders in the assessee's own case had already directed grant of approval for exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) from assessment year 2018-19 onwards, and that earlier determination could not be displaced by a later administrative error. The Commissioner (Exemptions) had incorrectly recorded that sections 11 and 12 applied, but the Tribunal held that this mistake did not override the prior directions. The Revenue's argument that the application date confined relief to assessment year 2019-20 was rejected because judicial discipline required following the earlier view on entitlement for assessment year 2018-19. The Assessing Officer was directed to give effect to exemption under section 10(23C)(vi).
Binding coordinate Bench orders in the assessee's own case had already directed grant of approval for exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) from assessment year 2018-19 onwards, and that earlier determination could not be displaced by a later administrative error. The Commissioner (Exemptions) had incorrectly recorded that sections 11 and 12 applied, but the Tribunal held that this mistake did not override the prior directions. The Revenue's argument that the application date confined relief to assessment year 2019-20 was rejected because judicial discipline required following the earlier view on entitlement for assessment year 2018-19. The Assessing Officer was directed to give effect to exemption under section 10(23C)(vi).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.