Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
Public servant status under anti-corruption law extends to recognised stock exchange leadership; constitutional and sanction challenges do not succeed...
Acquiescence, homebuyer protection and clean-slate resolution principles prevent landowners from disrupting an integrated project through late termina...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1001 to 1020 of 95833 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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
