Reopening Assessments invalid where satisfaction and jurisdictional approval are absent for third party seized material, leading to quashing of assess...
Benami property exclusion from the insolvency estate: Benami Act proceedings preclude IBC tribunals from reopening attachments or treating such assets...
Exclusion of limitation period: pandemic suspension plus debtor acknowledgement can extend limitation, requiring fresh factfinding on guarantee invoca...
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.