Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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 
