Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal and upheld the CIT(A)'s allowance of the assessee's claim under section 14A read with r.w.r. 8D. The Tribunal found the AO's suo-moto disallowance unreasonable and procedurally defective because no contemporaneous satisfaction was recorded to justify overriding the assessee's self-disallowance, and the AO failed to segregate investments yielding exempt income. The AO's computation, which exceeded total P&L expenses and ignored the assessee's working confined to investments producing exempt income, was held to lack logical basis and factual appreciation. Consequently, the excess disallowance imposed by the AO was deleted and the revenue's appeal dismissed.
ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal and upheld the CIT(A)'s allowance of the assessee's claim under section 14A read with r.w.r. 8D. The Tribunal found the AO's suo-moto disallowance unreasonable and procedurally defective because no contemporaneous satisfaction was recorded to justify overriding the assessee's self-disallowance, and the AO failed to segregate investments yielding exempt income. The AO's computation, which exceeded total P&L expenses and ignored the assessee's working confined to investments producing exempt income, was held to lack logical basis and factual appreciation. Consequently, the excess disallowance imposed by the AO was deleted and the revenue's appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
