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...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
