Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Appellate authorities may entertain a fresh deduction claim even if no revised return was filed, so long as the material needed to examine the claim is already on record; the restriction on fresh claims applies to the Assessing Officer, not to appellate jurisdiction. Here, the assessee had disclosed that commission expenditure was being deferred for claim on payment, and the Assessing Officer did not reject the claim for want of a revised return. After remand, the Assessing Officer was required to verify the quantum and nature of the commission services but failed to do so despite the details being furnished. The Tribunal also relied on acceptance of similar expenditure in other years, and the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose.
Appellate authorities may entertain a fresh deduction claim even if no revised return was filed, so long as the material needed to examine the claim is already on record; the restriction on fresh claims applies to the Assessing Officer, not to appellate jurisdiction. Here, the assessee had disclosed that commission expenditure was being deferred for claim on payment, and the Assessing Officer did not reject the claim for want of a revised return. After remand, the Assessing Officer was required to verify the quantum and nature of the commission services but failed to do so despite the details being furnished. The Tribunal also relied on acceptance of similar expenditure in other years, and the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.