Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Addition u/s 56(2)(viib) r.w.r 11UA - excess premium charged - issuance of preference shares to the director/ex-director of the assessee company - The ITAT held that there was no justification for the A.O to have triggered the deeming provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) i.e a counter tax evasion provision - The ITAT addressed the valuation dispute, emphasizing the distinction between preference shares and equity shares, particularly focusing on their characteristics and the applicable methods for determining their FMV. It was noted that preference shares, due to their nature, could not be valued using the same method as equity shares. - Matter restored back for redetermine the FMV of the subject preference shares subject to the tribunal's observations recorded as regards the mistakes/infirmities.
Addition u/s 56(2)(viib) r.w.r 11UA - excess premium charged - issuance of preference shares to the director/ex-director of the assessee company - The ITAT held that there was no justification for the A.O to have triggered the deeming provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) i.e a counter tax evasion provision - The ITAT addressed the valuation dispute, emphasizing the distinction between preference shares and equity shares, particularly focusing on their characteristics and the applicable methods for determining their FMV. It was noted that preference shares, due to their nature, could not be valued using the same method as equity shares. - Matter restored back for redetermine the FMV of the subject preference shares subject to the tribunal's observations recorded as regards the mistakes/infirmities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.