Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Customs Assessment Portal centralises classification and valuation guidance to support consistent, transparent and informed compliance across stakehol...
Page of 4918
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 98359 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court held that the provisions of Section 41(1) read with Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act would not be applicable in this case. The assessee had received advances against a project that was never implemented, and the amount was not returned due to financial constraints. The Assessing Officer treated it as a cessation of liability, but the CIT(Appeals) and Tribunal found that the assessee did not derive any benefit or enjoy the money received as an advance. The assessee had reinvested the amount in shares of group companies, which were later sold at a loss, and the capital loss was not claimed as a set-off. The concurrent findings of fact by the lower authorities were accepted, and it was held that no benefit was derived from the transactions, thus negating the applicability of the relevant provisions.
The High Court held that the provisions of Section 41(1) read with Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act would not be applicable in this case. The assessee had received advances against a project that was never implemented, and the amount was not returned due to financial constraints. The Assessing Officer treated it as a cessation of liability, but the CIT(Appeals) and Tribunal found that the assessee did not derive any benefit or enjoy the money received as an advance. The assessee had reinvested the amount in shares of group companies, which were later sold at a loss, and the capital loss was not claimed as a set-off. The concurrent findings of fact by the lower authorities were accepted, and it was held that no benefit was derived from the transactions, thus negating the applicability of the relevant provisions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
