Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
CIT(A) restricted addition on account of accommodation entries to 15% instead of 100%, as the Assessing Officer failed to establish that work was not actually performed. The Tribunal concurred with CIT(A)'s disallowance rate of 15% and rejected Revenue's contention to restore 100% disallowance. Regarding commission expenses of INR 8,81,3000/-, the Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s deletion in the absence of material to substantiate the allegation of 1% commission payment. CIT(A) correctly allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80-IA based on the Assessing Officer's remand report. Concerning disallowance u/s 14A, the Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s findings as the assessee had suo moto disallowed a higher amount of 1% of average investment as administrative expenses compared to the Assessing Officer's disallowance of 0.5%. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds on all issues.
CIT(A) restricted addition on account of accommodation entries to 15% instead of 100%, as the Assessing Officer failed to establish that work was not actually performed. The Tribunal concurred with CIT(A)'s disallowance rate of 15% and rejected Revenue's contention to restore 100% disallowance. Regarding commission expenses of INR 8,81,3000/-, the Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s deletion in the absence of material to substantiate the allegation of 1% commission payment. CIT(A) correctly allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80-IA based on the Assessing Officer's remand report. Concerning disallowance u/s 14A, the Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s findings as the assessee had suo moto disallowed a higher amount of 1% of average investment as administrative expenses compared to the Assessing Officer's disallowance of 0.5%. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds on all issues.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
