Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95955 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 held that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue under section 263, as the AO had duly examined the claim of deduction under Chapter VI-A and adopted a plausible view allowing the entire donation made up to 30.06.2020. The revisionary power under section 263 requires satisfaction of both error and prejudice, which was not established. Regarding CSR expenditure under section 135 of the Companies Act, the tribunal noted that this issue is pending before the jurisdictional High Court and that coordinate benches have favored the assessee's claim of deduction under section 80G, a view the AO rightly followed. Consequently, the PCIT's revision order was set aside, and the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The ITAT held that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue under section 263, as the AO had duly examined the claim of deduction under Chapter VI-A and adopted a plausible view allowing the entire donation made up to 30.06.2020. The revisionary power under section 263 requires satisfaction of both error and prejudice, which was not established. Regarding CSR expenditure under section 135 of the Companies Act, the tribunal noted that this issue is pending before the jurisdictional High Court and that coordinate benches have favored the assessee's claim of deduction under section 80G, a view the AO rightly followed. Consequently, the PCIT's revision order was set aside, and the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.