PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
The HC ruled in favor of the assessee regarding Asset Reconstruction Cost (ARC) provisioning, holding it qualified as a present obligation under AS 29 rather than a contingent liability. The Court determined the contractual obligation to repair and restore premises constituted an ascertainable liability that was properly provisioned for. The HC rejected the tax authorities' view that only ascertained liabilities could be provisioned. Regarding interest deduction under Section 36(1)(iii), the Court clarified that the provision's proviso merely disallows interest during the period between borrowing and when an asset is put to use for business extension. The matter was remanded to the AO to examine whether cell sites were actually put to use and whether funds came from a common pool.
The HC ruled in favor of the assessee regarding Asset Reconstruction Cost (ARC) provisioning, holding it qualified as a present obligation under AS 29 rather than a contingent liability. The Court determined the contractual obligation to repair and restore premises constituted an ascertainable liability that was properly provisioned for. The HC rejected the tax authorities' view that only ascertained liabilities could be provisioned. Regarding interest deduction under Section 36(1)(iii), the Court clarified that the provision's proviso merely disallows interest during the period between borrowing and when an asset is put to use for business extension. The matter was remanded to the AO to examine whether cell sites were actually put to use and whether funds came from a common pool.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
