Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
