Employee recoveries, input tax credit and notice pay recovery under GST: AAR distinguishes taxable supplies from non-taxable perquisites and penalties...
Liberal construction of sufficient cause justifies condonation of inordinate delay where criminal proceedings and jail confinement explained the defau...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5041 to 5060 of 96510 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 concerns disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D without exempt income for A.Y. Issue of retrospective/prospective application of Section 14A explanation post Finance Act, 2022. CIT(A) upheld disallowance citing Finance Act, 2020. SC rulings state disallowance impermissible without exempt income. AO's presumptions on investment source are not legally tenable. CIT(A)'s reliance on retrospective application of Section 14A explanation is illegal. Section 14A amendment not retroactive to A.Y. 2016-17. Tribunal rules against revenue, in favor of appellant, as AO's satisfaction for disallowance was based on future dividend income presumptions, lacking legal basis.
The case concerns disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D without exempt income for A.Y. Issue of retrospective/prospective application of Section 14A explanation post Finance Act, 2022. CIT(A) upheld disallowance citing Finance Act, 2020. SC rulings state disallowance impermissible without exempt income. AO's presumptions on investment source are not legally tenable. CIT(A)'s reliance on retrospective application of Section 14A explanation is illegal. Section 14A amendment not retroactive to A.Y. 2016-17. Tribunal rules against revenue, in favor of appellant, as AO's satisfaction for disallowance was based on future dividend income presumptions, lacking legal basis.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
