Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed for disallowance of depreciation on non-compete fees. The CIT(A) relied on Sharp Business System [2012 (11) TMI 324 - Delhi High Court], which is under challenge before the Supreme Court. Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. [2024 (4) TMI 1154 - Delhi High Court] allowed depreciation on non-compete fees after considering Sharp Business System. Different High Courts have divergent views on allowability of depreciation on non-compete fees, and the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. Considering the contentious issue, provisions of Section 271(1)(c) cannot be attracted. Assessee's appeal allowed.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed for disallowance of depreciation on non-compete fees. The CIT(A) relied on Sharp Business System [2012 (11) TMI 324 - Delhi High Court], which is under challenge before the Supreme Court. Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. [2024 (4) TMI 1154 - Delhi High Court] allowed depreciation on non-compete fees after considering Sharp Business System. Different High Courts have divergent views on allowability of depreciation on non-compete fees, and the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. Considering the contentious issue, provisions of Section 271(1)(c) cannot be attracted. Assessee's appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.