Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Dispute concerned computation of interest in the intimation issued under s. 143(1), not the leviability of interest itself. The ITAT noted that interest under ss. 234A and 234C was not in dispute, but the assessee challenged the higher amounts computed in the intimation. Because the working for the enhanced figure, especially for s. 234C, was not on record and the balance had to be examined against advance tax paid, the matter required factual verification. The computation under ss. 234A, 234B and 234C was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication in accordance with law.
Dispute concerned computation of interest in the intimation issued under s. 143(1), not the leviability of interest itself. The ITAT noted that interest under ss. 234A and 234C was not in dispute, but the assessee challenged the higher amounts computed in the intimation. Because the working for the enhanced figure, especially for s. 234C, was not on record and the balance had to be examined against advance tax paid, the matter required factual verification. The computation under ss. 234A, 234B and 234C was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.