Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 95957 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 allowed the taxpayer's appeal, holding that payments of lease rentals made to the statutory development authority during the relevant fiscal year were not subject to deduction of tax at source under section 194-I prior to the date on which higher courts declared the provision to apply prospectively. The Tribunal found that the assessing authorities erred in treating the taxpayer as an "assessee in default" and in issuing orders under sections 201(1)/201(1A). Pursuant to the appellate and superior court pronouncements giving prospective effect to TDS applicability, the orders of the lower authorities and the CIT(A) were set aside and the taxpayer's appeal was allowed.
The ITAT allowed the taxpayer's appeal, holding that payments of lease rentals made to the statutory development authority during the relevant fiscal year were not subject to deduction of tax at source under section 194-I prior to the date on which higher courts declared the provision to apply prospectively. The Tribunal found that the assessing authorities erred in treating the taxpayer as an "assessee in default" and in issuing orders under sections 201(1)/201(1A). Pursuant to the appellate and superior court pronouncements giving prospective effect to TDS applicability, the orders of the lower authorities and the CIT(A) were set aside and the taxpayer's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
