Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
Disallowance u/s 14A is limited to Rs.2,77,80,538/- and cannot be treated as an enhancement of assessment. Neither assessee nor AO mentioned a specific figure linked to the allowance of interest paid. When the allowance of interest has not reached finality, the quantum of disallowance u/s 14A cannot be considered final. The first appellate authority omitted to consider the disallowable amount u/s 14A, which the Commissioner rectified u/s 154, permissibly. The Supreme Court judgments in South Indian Bank Limited and Maxopp Investment Ltd. clarified that Section 14A aims to prevent double benefit by disallowing expenditure related to exempt income. The Supreme Court in T.S.Balaram and MEPCO Industries Limited held that a mistake apparent on record must be obvious, not requiring a long-drawn reasoning process. The assessee's contention that Section 14A is inapplicable is untenable, as the assessee accepted the disallowance and provided calculations. The appellate authority followed due procedure, issued notice, considered objections, and rectified the error within the Act's purview. Substantial questions of law are answered against the assessee.
Disallowance u/s 14A is limited to Rs.2,77,80,538/- and cannot be treated as an enhancement of assessment. Neither assessee nor AO mentioned a specific figure linked to the allowance of interest paid. When the allowance of interest has not reached finality, the quantum of disallowance u/s 14A cannot be considered final. The first appellate authority omitted to consider the disallowable amount u/s 14A, which the Commissioner rectified u/s 154, permissibly. The Supreme Court judgments in South Indian Bank Limited and Maxopp Investment Ltd. clarified that Section 14A aims to prevent double benefit by disallowing expenditure related to exempt income. The Supreme Court in T.S.Balaram and MEPCO Industries Limited held that a mistake apparent on record must be obvious, not requiring a long-drawn reasoning process. The assessee's contention that Section 14A is inapplicable is untenable, as the assessee accepted the disallowance and provided calculations. The appellate authority followed due procedure, issued notice, considered objections, and rectified the error within the Act's purview. Substantial questions of law are answered against the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
