Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
981 to 1000 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" ?
Unexplained expenditure - certain entries were found unmatched / not accounted for in the books of accounts in the expense ledger of the assessee - The assessee contended that the expenses were accounted for but not individually, and were incurred by employees at respective sites, later reimbursed by the assessee. However, the Tribunal (ITAT) found the explanation insufficient, emphasizing the need for proper documentation and evidence. While partially allowing the appeal, the tribunal imposed a restricted disallowance of 25% of the amount determined by the AO.
Unexplained expenditure - certain entries were found unmatched / not accounted for in the books of accounts in the expense ledger of the assessee - The assessee contended that the expenses were accounted for but not individually, and were incurred by employees at respective sites, later reimbursed by the assessee. However, the Tribunal (ITAT) found the explanation insufficient, emphasizing the need for proper documentation and evidence. While partially allowing the appeal, the tribunal imposed a restricted disallowance of 25% of the amount determined by the AO.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.