Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
