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...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
421 to 440 of 95999 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated under s.147, finding the AO adopted a "blind approach" without proper appreciation of facts. The notice dated 31/03/2019 under s.148 and subsequent assessment order under s.143(3) read with s.147 were invalidated. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to UK Film Tax Relief, noting these amounts had already been accounted for by EMIL in net realization figures. Regarding payments to Winford Production Ltd (UK), ITAT determined these were mere reimbursements of expenses for shooting arrangements and not fees for technical services under Indo-UK DTAA, as no technical knowledge was "made available" to the assessee. Consequently, no TDS obligation arose under s.195, and disallowance under s.40(a)(i) was deleted.
ITAT quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated under s.147, finding the AO adopted a "blind approach" without proper appreciation of facts. The notice dated 31/03/2019 under s.148 and subsequent assessment order under s.143(3) read with s.147 were invalidated. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to UK Film Tax Relief, noting these amounts had already been accounted for by EMIL in net realization figures. Regarding payments to Winford Production Ltd (UK), ITAT determined these were mere reimbursements of expenses for shooting arrangements and not fees for technical services under Indo-UK DTAA, as no technical knowledge was "made available" to the assessee. Consequently, no TDS obligation arose under s.195, and disallowance under s.40(a)(i) was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.