Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
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 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
