Pre-amendment reassessment limitation bars late notices under the preserved regime, invalidating consequential reassessment for affected earlier asses...
Cash-sales explanations for bank deposits require documentary reconciliation; reassessment notice survived where effective response time was available...
Functional comparability in transfer pricing prevents ad hoc arm's length adjustments where functions, assets, risks and reliable comparables are unes...
Contingency expenses, exempt-income disallowance, and royalty benchmarking: unsupported adjustments were deleted under consistent accounting and trans...
The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that contributions made to the unrecognized provident fund and unapproved pension fund were eligible for deduction under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act. The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, ruling that the assessee had rightfully discharged its onus and the expenditure incurred was allowable. Regarding the allowability of expenditure u/s 36(1)(iv) as per Section 37(1), the High Court followed its earlier precedent in CIT vs. Punjab Financial Corporation, contrary to the Delhi High Court's view in Sony India P. Ltd. The court held that its earlier judgment would have binding precedential value over differing views of other High Courts. Furthermore, the court ruled that the liability payable by the assessee on account of electricity duty could be set off by the allotment of equity shares, amounting to discharging the liability u/s 43B. The shares allotted by the Government of Haryana were considered as part of the funds and not acquired from other sources, hence allowable u/s 43B of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was dismissed.
The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that contributions made to the unrecognized provident fund and unapproved pension fund were eligible for deduction under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act. The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, ruling that the assessee had rightfully discharged its onus and the expenditure incurred was allowable. Regarding the allowability of expenditure u/s 36(1)(iv) as per Section 37(1), the High Court followed its earlier precedent in CIT vs. Punjab Financial Corporation, contrary to the Delhi High Court's view in Sony India P. Ltd. The court held that its earlier judgment would have binding precedential value over differing views of other High Courts. Furthermore, the court ruled that the liability payable by the assessee on account of electricity duty could be set off by the allotment of equity shares, amounting to discharging the liability u/s 43B. The shares allotted by the Government of Haryana were considered as part of the funds and not acquired from other sources, hence allowable u/s 43B of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
