Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Scientific research association approval requires continuing SIRO status, annual donation reporting, and donor certificates for the approved foundatio...
Scientific research institution approval is conditional on SIRO recognition, annual donation reporting, donor certification, and prescribed compliance...
The case involves rectification u/s 154 for disallowance of bad debts provisions u/s 36(1)(viia) in a co-operative bank's computation sheet. ITAT held that the mistake was apparent as the provision was not in the books. CIT(A) noted rectification requires a glaring mistake of law. ITAT found the claim ineligible and rectified u/s 154. CIT(A) noted a similar deduction in a subsequent year but the provision was duly accounted for. AR argued for deduction based on Companies Act provisions, but ITAT found no support for allowing the claim if not in books. Following precedent, ITAT remitted the matter to AO to allow deduction based on actual provision made in books. Revenue's appeal partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The case involves rectification u/s 154 for disallowance of bad debts provisions u/s 36(1)(viia) in a co-operative bank's computation sheet. ITAT held that the mistake was apparent as the provision was not in the books. CIT(A) noted rectification requires a glaring mistake of law. ITAT found the claim ineligible and rectified u/s 154. CIT(A) noted a similar deduction in a subsequent year but the provision was duly accounted for. AR argued for deduction based on Companies Act provisions, but ITAT found no support for allowing the claim if not in books. Following precedent, ITAT remitted the matter to AO to allow deduction based on actual provision made in books. Revenue's appeal partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.