Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
In a charitable institution's assessment, the Tribunal held that application of current-year income and accumulated funds, as separately disclosed in the return and Form 10B and verified in scrutiny, could not be disallowed on a supposed mismatch; once the Assessing Officer recorded that there was no difference between the two, the earlier prima facie adjustment under section 143(1) had no surviving basis and the claim was allowed in full. It also held that no fresh claim was being raised on appeal, so Goetze (India) was inapplicable. The final computation wrongly duplicated the same income components, inflating the taxable base; tax under section 115BBI and interest under sections 234B and 234C were consequential and had to be recomputed. The appeal was allowed.
In a charitable institution's assessment, the Tribunal held that application of current-year income and accumulated funds, as separately disclosed in the return and Form 10B and verified in scrutiny, could not be disallowed on a supposed mismatch; once the Assessing Officer recorded that there was no difference between the two, the earlier prima facie adjustment under section 143(1) had no surviving basis and the claim was allowed in full. It also held that no fresh claim was being raised on appeal, so Goetze (India) was inapplicable. The final computation wrongly duplicated the same income components, inflating the taxable base; tax under section 115BBI and interest under sections 234B and 234C were consequential and had to be recomputed. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
