The arm’s length result under the TNMM is determined to the net profit margin of a comparable transactions under a comparable circumstances and the profitability derived from uncontrolled party engaged in similar business activity under similar circumstances are to be analysed.
Here in the present case, there is no linkage or nexus between the funds borrowed by assessee and the impugned investments, hence, no interest expenditure can be disallowed by mechanically applying the Provisions of Rule 8D of the Rules.
it would be wholly unreasonable to deduct tax at source on an amount which has not accrued to the Petitioner as income during the financial year in question, the entitlement of the Petitioner being contingent on the outcome of the challenge to the arbitral award.
Article deal with 1. Non availability of credit in case of inter-state purchases and in certain other cases 2. When dealer is not entitled to input credit? Manufacturer will be entitled to credit of tax paid on inputs used by him in manufacture. A trader (dealer) will be entitled to get credit of tax on goods which he has purchased for re-sale.
AO denied deduction u/s 80-IB(10) only on the ground that assessee engaged in business of construction had adopted ‘Project completion method’ instead of ‘Percentage completion method’ as prescribed under AS-7 (Revised). The Hon’ble High Court observed that there was no allegation to the effect that on account of “Project completion method” adopted by the assessee, its profit for any particular year was distorted. Further, the assessee had followed the same system consistently for a long period of time. It was thus held that assessee must be allowed deduction u/s 80-IB(10).
Though the questions are multiple, issue is single, namely, the deduction of Rs.61,08,500/- claimed by the assessee towards expenditure being part of development charges. The assessee had paid such sum to Surat Municipal Corporation towards water connection charges.
The AO merely made comparative study of the expenses for the year under consideration with the preceding assessment year and found that expenses incurred in the preceding assessment year were 2.89% on turnover but in the assessment year under appeal it was 4.78% on the turnover.
The Tribunal in the assessee’s appeal considered several grounds titled as “Additional grounds”. However, upon close perusal of such so-called grounds, we notice that such grounds were nothing but legal contentions and arose out of order of CIT(Appeals) which was under challenge
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Customs Tariff (Identification and Assessment of Safeguard Duty) Rules, 1997 and in supersession of notification of the Government of India in the
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Customs Tariff (Transitional Product Specific Safeguard Duty) Rules, 2002
