Depreciation and routine compliance expenses disallowance did not prove inaccurate particulars or misreporting; penalty sustained only on foreign trav...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3481 to 3500 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing credit for TDS deducted under Section 194C. The Tribunal determined that despite transferring gross contract receipts to constituent partners on a back-to-back basis, the appellant properly reported the profit/loss in its own returns. The AO erroneously invoked Section 238(1) to deny TDS credit, overlooking that the appellant had disclosed relevant profits and claimed corresponding TDS in accordance with Section 199(1) and Rule 37BA(1). Since payments were made to the appellant and TDS was remitted to the government in the appellant's name as evidenced by Form 26AS, the appellant alone was entitled to claim the TDS credit.
The ITAT ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing credit for TDS deducted under Section 194C. The Tribunal determined that despite transferring gross contract receipts to constituent partners on a back-to-back basis, the appellant properly reported the profit/loss in its own returns. The AO erroneously invoked Section 238(1) to deny TDS credit, overlooking that the appellant had disclosed relevant profits and claimed corresponding TDS in accordance with Section 199(1) and Rule 37BA(1). Since payments were made to the appellant and TDS was remitted to the government in the appellant's name as evidenced by Form 26AS, the appellant alone was entitled to claim the TDS credit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
