Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
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 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
