Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Allowability of Interest Expenditure - The Tribunal noted a delay of 418 days in filing the quantum appeal by the assessee, which was condoned as the assessee pursued an alternative legal remedy before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. - The main issue was the disallowance of interest on the grounds that borrowed funds were utilized for non-business purposes. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not appropriately consider the remand report from the Assessing Officer (AO), which detailed the utilization of borrowed funds. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the quantum appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication in light of the AO's remand report. - AT
Allowability of Interest Expenditure - The Tribunal noted a delay of 418 days in filing the quantum appeal by the assessee, which was condoned as the assessee pursued an alternative legal remedy before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. - The main issue was the disallowance of interest on the grounds that borrowed funds were utilized for non-business purposes. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not appropriately consider the remand report from the Assessing Officer (AO), which detailed the utilization of borrowed funds. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the quantum appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication in light of the AO's remand report. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.