Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Disallowances on account of non-payment of VAT before prescribed return filing date u/s 139(1) - assessee's submission of exclusive method of accounting without debiting VAT to profit and loss account rejected. Reliance on Ganapati Motors case distinguished as authorities had doubted and rejected assessee's accounting system, unlike in cited case. CIT(A) rightly discarded assessee's exclusive accounting method contrary to section 145A(ii) and Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Knight Frank. Arguments incomprehensible due to factual differences from Ganapati Motors. No infirmity in CIT(A)'s confirmation of disallowance u/s 143(1). Partial deletion by CIT(A) of disallowance pertaining to earlier year upheld as settled law prohibits addition/disallowance of expenditure of different year in relevant year.
Disallowances on account of non-payment of VAT before prescribed return filing date u/s 139(1) - assessee's submission of exclusive method of accounting without debiting VAT to profit and loss account rejected. Reliance on Ganapati Motors case distinguished as authorities had doubted and rejected assessee's accounting system, unlike in cited case. CIT(A) rightly discarded assessee's exclusive accounting method contrary to section 145A(ii) and Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Knight Frank. Arguments incomprehensible due to factual differences from Ganapati Motors. No infirmity in CIT(A)'s confirmation of disallowance u/s 143(1). Partial deletion by CIT(A) of disallowance pertaining to earlier year upheld as settled law prohibits addition/disallowance of expenditure of different year in relevant year.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
