Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4782
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 95633 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 Delhi addressed two key issues. Firstly, on disallowance of provision for leave encashment, the AO rejected the claim as it was not made through a revised return. The Tribunal held that deduction can only be allowed when actual payment is made u/s 43B(f) of the Act, citing a Supreme Court ruling. AO directed to verify actual payment date. Secondly, on taxability of excise duty subsidy, the Tribunal ruled it as capital receipt based on earlier decisions, holding it non-taxable. Additional ground raised by the assessee was allowed.
The ITAT Delhi addressed two key issues. Firstly, on disallowance of provision for leave encashment, the AO rejected the claim as it was not made through a revised return. The Tribunal held that deduction can only be allowed when actual payment is made u/s 43B(f) of the Act, citing a Supreme Court ruling. AO directed to verify actual payment date. Secondly, on taxability of excise duty subsidy, the Tribunal ruled it as capital receipt based on earlier decisions, holding it non-taxable. Additional ground raised by the assessee was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
