Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 96140 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A provision for ex gratia payment to employees on mercantile basis was allowable as business expenditure under section 37(1) because the Board had approved the liability and government approval for release did not make it contingent; the disallowance was deleted. In respect of exempt dividend income, disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D failed because the Assessing Officer did not first examine the assessee's claim and record dissatisfaction on the basis of the accounts; that disallowance was deleted. Expenditure for increasing authorised share capital was held to be capital in nature and outside section 35D, so the disallowance was sustained. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was deleted because the underlying issue was debatable and had been admitted by the High Court.
A provision for ex gratia payment to employees on mercantile basis was allowable as business expenditure under section 37(1) because the Board had approved the liability and government approval for release did not make it contingent; the disallowance was deleted. In respect of exempt dividend income, disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D failed because the Assessing Officer did not first examine the assessee's claim and record dissatisfaction on the basis of the accounts; that disallowance was deleted. Expenditure for increasing authorised share capital was held to be capital in nature and outside section 35D, so the disallowance was sustained. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was deleted because the underlying issue was debatable and had been admitted by the High Court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
