Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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.