Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4784
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
541 to 560 of 95673 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 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
