Mis-declaration and Concealment: confiscation affirmed, transaction value re-determined and mandatory penalty sustained; redemption allowed on payment...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5761 to 5780 of 96408 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4821 
Join Channel 
