Minimum alternate tax exclusions for pre-amendment banking companies and expatriate Indian branch salaries remain outside head office expenditure limi...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1201 to 1220 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.