Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Objective characteristics govern magnesium bis-glycinate chelate classification as an amino-acid coordination compound, not a food preparation or anti...
Independent professional certification requires pleaded knowledge or complicity for criminal liability; untimely complaints remain barred by limitatio...
The Appellate Tribunal addressed two key issues. Firstly, it ruled that disallowance of unpaid interest u/s 43B on a loan from the World Bank, advanced by the State Government, was not valid. The Tribunal clarified that interest payable to the State Government or World Bank is not covered u/s 43B, as these entities do not fall under the definition of covered financial institutions. Therefore, the disallowance was directed to be deleted. Secondly, regarding the addition on account of electricity duty u/s 43B, the Tribunal held that the duty collected by the assessee from consumers does not constitute trading receipts. As the duty is collected on behalf of the government and not levied on the assessee, section 43B does not apply. The Tribunal cited a Kerala High Court case, upheld by the Supreme Court, to support this ruling. Thus, the Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee on this issue as well.
The Appellate Tribunal addressed two key issues. Firstly, it ruled that disallowance of unpaid interest u/s 43B on a loan from the World Bank, advanced by the State Government, was not valid. The Tribunal clarified that interest payable to the State Government or World Bank is not covered u/s 43B, as these entities do not fall under the definition of covered financial institutions. Therefore, the disallowance was directed to be deleted. Secondly, regarding the addition on account of electricity duty u/s 43B, the Tribunal held that the duty collected by the assessee from consumers does not constitute trading receipts. As the duty is collected on behalf of the government and not levied on the assessee, section 43B does not apply. The Tribunal cited a Kerala High Court case, upheld by the Supreme Court, to support this ruling. Thus, the Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee on this issue as well.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
