Composite GST notices, mandatory limitation, and same-subject bar: HC upheld valid notices but quashed overlapping proceedings and unauthorised withho...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3221 to 3240 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Deduction under section 36(1)(vii) was held to operate distinctly from provision-based deduction under section 36(1)(viia), and the proviso was applied only to prevent double deduction; on the facts already accepted in earlier years, no duplication was shown, so the disallowance of bad debts written off was deleted. The Tribunal also held that earlier coordinate bench rulings remained binding despite pending High Court appeals in the absence of any stay or reversal, and the Revenue's challenge failed. On the amortised lease premium issue, the Tribunal applied section 158A because an identical question of law was already pending before the High Court, and directed that the final High Court decision be applied to the years in appeal.
Deduction under section 36(1)(vii) was held to operate distinctly from provision-based deduction under section 36(1)(viia), and the proviso was applied only to prevent double deduction; on the facts already accepted in earlier years, no duplication was shown, so the disallowance of bad debts written off was deleted. The Tribunal also held that earlier coordinate bench rulings remained binding despite pending High Court appeals in the absence of any stay or reversal, and the Revenue's challenge failed. On the amortised lease premium issue, the Tribunal applied section 158A because an identical question of law was already pending before the High Court, and directed that the final High Court decision be applied to the years in appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
