Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
Page of 4891
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
201 to 220 of 97820 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The issue pertained to determining the commencement date of business operations for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 35D of the Act for preliminary expenses incurred prior to the commencement of business. The assessee had deducted provident fund from June 2008 onwards, indicating the commencement of business operations from that date. The Assessing Officer, however, contended that the business commenced only upon acquisition of the equity research unit under a slump sale agreement. The CIT(A) ruled in favor of the assessee, and the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s finding, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The critical issue was the determination of the appropriate commencement date for claiming deduction u/s 35D, with the ITAT accepting the assessee's claim based on the evidence presented.
The issue pertained to determining the commencement date of business operations for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 35D of the Act for preliminary expenses incurred prior to the commencement of business. The assessee had deducted provident fund from June 2008 onwards, indicating the commencement of business operations from that date. The Assessing Officer, however, contended that the business commenced only upon acquisition of the equity research unit under a slump sale agreement. The CIT(A) ruled in favor of the assessee, and the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s finding, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The critical issue was the determination of the appropriate commencement date for claiming deduction u/s 35D, with the ITAT accepting the assessee's claim based on the evidence presented.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4891 
