Appeal allows marketing payments as deductible business expenses under Sec.37; director pay retained; R&D deductible from certificate date under Sec.3...
Registration under s.12AB upheld; CIT(Exemptions) exceeded jurisdiction by deciding taxability instead of preliminary verification and registration di...
Dependent Agent PE unresolved for lack of factual inquiry; arm's-length distribution accepted; royalty claim rejected; 15% refund interest (Section 24...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9881 to 9900 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT allowed the appeal and directed the AO to compute surcharge at 15% on tax (not on tax-plus-surcharge) applicable to the assessee's income, rejecting the AO's imposition of 37%; the Tribunal held that "slab" references income, MMR refers to the highest income slab under the Finance Act, and surcharge rates derive from the Finance Act rather than sections 164/167B/2(29C) alone. The assessee, an AOP with total income exceeding Rs.5 crore (including dividend income) under the new tax regime, satisfies Finance Act conditions for 15% surcharge; consequential relief was ordered in favour of the assessee.
ITAT allowed the appeal and directed the AO to compute surcharge at 15% on tax (not on tax-plus-surcharge) applicable to the assessee's income, rejecting the AO's imposition of 37%; the Tribunal held that "slab" references income, MMR refers to the highest income slab under the Finance Act, and surcharge rates derive from the Finance Act rather than sections 164/167B/2(29C) alone. The assessee, an AOP with total income exceeding Rs.5 crore (including dividend income) under the new tax regime, satisfies Finance Act conditions for 15% surcharge; consequential relief was ordered in favour of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
