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...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Deduction under Section 80I on the profits and gains of an industrial undertaking had to be computed without first reducing the deduction claimed under Section 32AB. Applying the Supreme Court's distinction between 'profits and gains' and 'income' in Vijay Industries, the Court held that Section 80I is to be worked out on the undertaking's profits themselves, not on a net figure after the 32AB reduction. The Tribunal was therefore wrong to direct such reduction, and the question was answered for the assessee and against the Revenue.
Deduction under Section 80I on the profits and gains of an industrial undertaking had to be computed without first reducing the deduction claimed under Section 32AB. Applying the Supreme Court's distinction between 'profits and gains' and 'income' in Vijay Industries, the Court held that Section 80I is to be worked out on the undertaking's profits themselves, not on a net figure after the 32AB reduction. The Tribunal was therefore wrong to direct such reduction, and the question was answered for the assessee and against the Revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.