Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9201 to 9220 of 96365 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 for statistical purposes, holding that the CIT(A) exceeded the remit of the proviso to s.251(1)(a) by directing a de novo reassessment when the default related solely to disallowance under s.36(1)(iii). The Tribunal restrained the remand to the discrete issue of s.36(1)(iii) disallowance: it directed deletion of the disallowance insofar as impugned investments fall within the doctrine of commercial expediency and are consistent with prior treatment, and restored remaining investments to the AO for limited verification confined to linkage with interest-free funds and the validity of the s.36(1)(iii) disallowance.
ITAT allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, holding that the CIT(A) exceeded the remit of the proviso to s.251(1)(a) by directing a de novo reassessment when the default related solely to disallowance under s.36(1)(iii). The Tribunal restrained the remand to the discrete issue of s.36(1)(iii) disallowance: it directed deletion of the disallowance insofar as impugned investments fall within the doctrine of commercial expediency and are consistent with prior treatment, and restored remaining investments to the AO for limited verification confined to linkage with interest-free funds and the validity of the s.36(1)(iii) disallowance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
