Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
The HC upheld the assessee's methodology for computing deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the I.T. Act. Since the assessee's accounts did not segregate actual expenditure for eligible business, the court approved the proportionate allocation method where the ratio of total income to total expenditure was applied to eligible business income to determine eligible business expenses. This approach was justified as the accounts showed gross income and expenditure for the entire business, as well as gross income for eligible business, but not specific expenditure for eligible business. The court confirmed that 20% of the resulting profit figure from eligible business qualified for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii).
The HC upheld the assessee's methodology for computing deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the I.T. Act. Since the assessee's accounts did not segregate actual expenditure for eligible business, the court approved the proportionate allocation method where the ratio of total income to total expenditure was applied to eligible business income to determine eligible business expenses. This approach was justified as the accounts showed gross income and expenditure for the entire business, as well as gross income for eligible business, but not specific expenditure for eligible business. The court confirmed that 20% of the resulting profit figure from eligible business qualified for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
