Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
