Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Rectification was held maintainable where the earlier appellate direction wrongly assumed that land cost had not already been debited in the assessee's accounts and, under the joint development arrangement, treated construction cost as the assessee's cost. The Tribunal held that no provision allowed substitution of actual cost with fair market value or another notional value for computing profits for section 80-IB(10), so the deduction had to be recomputed on the profits disclosed in the Profit and Loss Account. It also held that the doctrine of merger did not apply because the earlier round had decided only eligibility in principle, not quantification, making rejection of rectification on merger grounds unjustified.
Rectification was held maintainable where the earlier appellate direction wrongly assumed that land cost had not already been debited in the assessee's accounts and, under the joint development arrangement, treated construction cost as the assessee's cost. The Tribunal held that no provision allowed substitution of actual cost with fair market value or another notional value for computing profits for section 80-IB(10), so the deduction had to be recomputed on the profits disclosed in the Profit and Loss Account. It also held that the doctrine of merger did not apply because the earlier round had decided only eligibility in principle, not quantification, making rejection of rectification on merger grounds unjustified.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.