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...
Land executed under a development agreement-cum-power of attorney was held assessable in the individual owners' hands because legal title vested in them and the documents were executed by them personally, while the asserted partition was treated only as an internal family arrangement and not proof of HUF ownership. The Tribunal further held that the agreement granted the developer only a limited licence to enter for construction, not effective transfer of possession for capital gains purposes, and no non-refundable consideration had been received. As the essential conditions for transfer were not satisfied in the relevant year, the capital gains addition was deleted.
Land executed under a development agreement-cum-power of attorney was held assessable in the individual owners' hands because legal title vested in them and the documents were executed by them personally, while the asserted partition was treated only as an internal family arrangement and not proof of HUF ownership. The Tribunal further held that the agreement granted the developer only a limited licence to enter for construction, not effective transfer of possession for capital gains purposes, and no non-refundable consideration had been received. As the essential conditions for transfer were not satisfied in the relevant year, the capital gains addition was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
