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 held that the CIT(A) erred by not recognizing the correct depreciation figure of Rs. 89,96,72,987/- as per the Tax Audit Report, instead of the incorrectly stated Rs. 1,03,13,420/- in the ITR. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on the depreciation issue. Regarding the bonus payment under section 43B, the ITAT found that CIT(A) failed to address this issue properly and remanded it back with directions to pass a speaking order according to law. The CIT(A) should have verified that the bonus was paid before the due date of filing the income tax return. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by not recognizing the correct depreciation figure of Rs. 89,96,72,987/- as per the Tax Audit Report, instead of the incorrectly stated Rs. 1,03,13,420/- in the ITR. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on the depreciation issue. Regarding the bonus payment under section 43B, the ITAT found that CIT(A) failed to address this issue properly and remanded it back with directions to pass a speaking order according to law. The CIT(A) should have verified that the bonus was paid before the due date of filing the income tax return. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
