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 ...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
