Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Rebate under section 87A was held available for Assessment Year 2024-25 to a resident individual opting for the new tax regime, even where total income included short-term capital gains taxed under section 111A. The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate Bench view on identical facts and accepted that, for that year, there was no express statutory bar in section 87A or section 111A denying rebate if the prescribed income threshold was satisfied. The later amendment was treated as prospective, so it did not apply to the year in question. Accordingly, the processing adjustment denying the rebate was deleted and the rebate claim was allowed.
Rebate under section 87A was held available for Assessment Year 2024-25 to a resident individual opting for the new tax regime, even where total income included short-term capital gains taxed under section 111A. The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate Bench view on identical facts and accepted that, for that year, there was no express statutory bar in section 87A or section 111A denying rebate if the prescribed income threshold was satisfied. The later amendment was treated as prospective, so it did not apply to the year in question. Accordingly, the processing adjustment denying the rebate was deleted and the rebate claim was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.