Prospective valuation amendment limits reassessment: unamended fair market value reference could not justify reopening based on a registered valuer's ...
Exemption for examination-related services rejected where recipients were commercial entities; suppression sustained extended limitation and penalties...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1281 to 1300 of 95957 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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
