Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
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...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 95872 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
For deduction claims of eligible industrial units, only expenditure having a direct nexus with that undertaking can be reduced from profits; common R&D costs cannot be allocated to the units absent proof that they relate to those units. The Court accepted the Tribunal's factual finding that the R&D projects were unrelated to the products manufactured by the deduction-claiming units, were future-oriented and uncertain, and were not shown by the Assessing Officer to pertain to those units. In the absence of nexus, the allocation-based disallowance was unwarranted, no substantial question of law arose, and the Revenue's challenge was rejected.
For deduction claims of eligible industrial units, only expenditure having a direct nexus with that undertaking can be reduced from profits; common R&D costs cannot be allocated to the units absent proof that they relate to those units. The Court accepted the Tribunal's factual finding that the R&D projects were unrelated to the products manufactured by the deduction-claiming units, were future-oriented and uncertain, and were not shown by the Assessing Officer to pertain to those units. In the absence of nexus, the allocation-based disallowance was unwarranted, no substantial question of law arose, and the Revenue's challenge was rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.