Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Reopening of assessment under section 147 was invalid where it was based on the same material already examined in the original scrutiny, with no new tangible information, and on an incorrect factual premise that separate research and development accounts were not maintained. The Tribunal treated this as a mere change of opinion after four years and held the jurisdictional assumption bad in law. On merits, it found no multiple deduction: the disputed depreciation was already included in research and development expenditure and had been added back in the income computation, so no further disallowance survived. The appellate authority also could not uphold denial of weighted deduction beyond the reassessment order without enhancement notice.
Reopening of assessment under section 147 was invalid where it was based on the same material already examined in the original scrutiny, with no new tangible information, and on an incorrect factual premise that separate research and development accounts were not maintained. The Tribunal treated this as a mere change of opinion after four years and held the jurisdictional assumption bad in law. On merits, it found no multiple deduction: the disputed depreciation was already included in research and development expenditure and had been added back in the income computation, so no further disallowance survived. The appellate authority also could not uphold denial of weighted deduction beyond the reassessment order without enhancement notice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
