Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
261 to 280 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
