Fraudulently obtained SEIS scrips cannot support customs exemption; recovery, confiscation and penalties were sustained, but employee penalty fell awa...
Short deduction of tax at source did not warrant disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), and the related royalty-characterisation questions were treated as academic. Corporate guarantee commission was upheld at 0.5% because a corporate guarantee to an associated enterprise is not comparable to a bank guarantee, so no substantial question of law arose. On section 14A, where the assessee's own and other non-interest-bearing funds exceeded tax-free investments, a presumption arose that the investments came from interest-free funds, defeating interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii). Only the re-framed question under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) concerning investments yielding exempt income during the year was entertained.
Short deduction of tax at source did not warrant disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), and the related royalty-characterisation questions were treated as academic. Corporate guarantee commission was upheld at 0.5% because a corporate guarantee to an associated enterprise is not comparable to a bank guarantee, so no substantial question of law arose. On section 14A, where the assessee's own and other non-interest-bearing funds exceeded tax-free investments, a presumption arose that the investments came from interest-free funds, defeating interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii). Only the re-framed question under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) concerning investments yielding exempt income during the year was entertained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
