Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1181 to 1200 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A genuine donation made by cheque to an approved institution remained substantively eligible for deduction, and the claim could not be refused merely because the wrong deduction provision was quoted. The Tribunal held that a technical misdescription of the provision did not defeat relief where the facts already on record established eligibility and allowing the claim under the correct provision caused no adverse effect on total income. It also recognised that appellate authority could grant the proper relief on the existing material, so the disallowance was unsustainable and was directed to be deleted.
A genuine donation made by cheque to an approved institution remained substantively eligible for deduction, and the claim could not be refused merely because the wrong deduction provision was quoted. The Tribunal held that a technical misdescription of the provision did not defeat relief where the facts already on record established eligibility and allowing the claim under the correct provision caused no adverse effect on total income. It also recognised that appellate authority could grant the proper relief on the existing material, so the disallowance was unsustainable and was directed to be deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.