Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97618 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.