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...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
In the case before ITAT Mumbai, the issue revolved around the deduction u/s 80G for a charitable trust. The assessee, now assessable as an AOP, had donated an amount exceeding 10% of its gross total income to an approved educational institution. The CIT(A) held that Section 80G(4) does not restrict donations to 10% of total income, allowing 50% deduction. The matter was remanded to verify deductions for entities u/s 80G(3)(a)(iiif). The Tribunal upheld this decision, dismissing the appeal. Additionally, the claim for deduction u/s 80GGA, though not separately mentioned in the return, was considered valid as it was included under Chapter VIA. Lastly, disallowance of carry forward of excess expenditure was deemed irrelevant as the assessee did not claim benefits u/s 11 and 12.
In the case before ITAT Mumbai, the issue revolved around the deduction u/s 80G for a charitable trust. The assessee, now assessable as an AOP, had donated an amount exceeding 10% of its gross total income to an approved educational institution. The CIT(A) held that Section 80G(4) does not restrict donations to 10% of total income, allowing 50% deduction. The matter was remanded to verify deductions for entities u/s 80G(3)(a)(iiif). The Tribunal upheld this decision, dismissing the appeal. Additionally, the claim for deduction u/s 80GGA, though not separately mentioned in the return, was considered valid as it was included under Chapter VIA. Lastly, disallowance of carry forward of excess expenditure was deemed irrelevant as the assessee did not claim benefits u/s 11 and 12.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
