Permanent establishment tests: independent subsidiary premises and principal-to-principal dealings did not create Indian taxability for offshore suppl...
Valuation Officer estimates govern property-value additions once statutory valuation is invoked, requiring fresh consideration of objections and compa...
Waiver of written show-cause notice may prevent a later procedural challenge after participation in customs adjudication, preserving statutory appella...
Retrospective invalidity of ocean-freight IGST supports refunds despite non-party status and prior credit utilisation, subject to authorised appeal gr...
Additional evidence in departmental appeals may include show-cause-notice material without introducing a new case where it merely corroborates existin...
Reasoned rectification orders require consideration of expenditure disclosed in income-tax returns, preventing revision based on incomplete income com...
Modified returns after business reorganisations cannot trigger fresh scrutiny once the original assessment was complete, invalidating related transfer...
Page of 4891
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 97820 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The case involved the entitlement to exemption u/s 11/12 based on the filing of an audit report. Non-filing of the audit report with the return of income was considered a procedural irregularity, not a basis for denying the exemption. The CBDT Circular allowed for condoning delays, but as no condonation petition was filed, this point was rejected. The assessee was advised to appeal against the intimation u/s 143(1) rather than a rectification order u/s 154. The decision emphasized that the correct amount of tax should be imposed on the assessee, even if the appeal channel was not chosen correctly. Ultimately, the assessee was granted the benefit of exemption u/s 11/12 despite the delay in filing the audit report.
The case involved the entitlement to exemption u/s 11/12 based on the filing of an audit report. Non-filing of the audit report with the return of income was considered a procedural irregularity, not a basis for denying the exemption. The CBDT Circular allowed for condoning delays, but as no condonation petition was filed, this point was rejected. The assessee was advised to appeal against the intimation u/s 143(1) rather than a rectification order u/s 154. The decision emphasized that the correct amount of tax should be imposed on the assessee, even if the appeal channel was not chosen correctly. Ultimately, the assessee was granted the benefit of exemption u/s 11/12 despite the delay in filing the audit report.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4891 
