Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3301 to 3320 of 96257 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT Chennai addressed several issues. Firstly, regarding TDS u/s 195/192, it held that payments made to overseas group entities for relocation expenses of secondment employees were not subject to TDS as they were reimbursement of internal business costs, not taxable income. The matter was remitted to the AO for verification. Secondly, non-credit of DDT paid u/s 115O was remitted for verification of the amount paid. Thirdly, DDT liability u/s 115-O for dividends paid to a UK entity was to be decided by lower authorities. Lastly, lease rental payments were allowed as deductible expenses, with depreciation on assets taken on finance lease being part of the disallowance under section 32. The confusion created by the AO was clarified, and the Revenue's appeal on this issue was dismissed.
The ITAT Chennai addressed several issues. Firstly, regarding TDS u/s 195/192, it held that payments made to overseas group entities for relocation expenses of secondment employees were not subject to TDS as they were reimbursement of internal business costs, not taxable income. The matter was remitted to the AO for verification. Secondly, non-credit of DDT paid u/s 115O was remitted for verification of the amount paid. Thirdly, DDT liability u/s 115-O for dividends paid to a UK entity was to be decided by lower authorities. Lastly, lease rental payments were allowed as deductible expenses, with depreciation on assets taken on finance lease being part of the disallowance under section 32. The confusion created by the AO was clarified, and the Revenue's appeal on this issue was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.