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 partially allowed the assessee's appeal against revision under section 263. Regarding bonus payment of Rs. 2.02 crores, the Tribunal found that the AO had properly examined this issue during assessment proceedings, and the assessee had demonstrated payment before the return filing due date in compliance with section 43B. However, concerning interest expenses on PFC loans amounting to Rs. 17.91 crores, the Tribunal upheld the PCIT's finding that the AO erred in allowing unpaid interest without proper examination, violating section 43B requirements. On the third issue of Capital Grants & Subsidies and Consumer Contribution write-backs, the Tribunal rejected the PCIT's contention of shortfall, accepting the assessee's demonstration that the correct amounts were properly accounted for.
The ITAT partially allowed the assessee's appeal against revision under section 263. Regarding bonus payment of Rs. 2.02 crores, the Tribunal found that the AO had properly examined this issue during assessment proceedings, and the assessee had demonstrated payment before the return filing due date in compliance with section 43B. However, concerning interest expenses on PFC loans amounting to Rs. 17.91 crores, the Tribunal upheld the PCIT's finding that the AO erred in allowing unpaid interest without proper examination, violating section 43B requirements. On the third issue of Capital Grants & Subsidies and Consumer Contribution write-backs, the Tribunal rejected the PCIT's contention of shortfall, accepting the assessee's demonstration that the correct amounts were properly accounted for.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.