Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 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.