Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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.