Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95955 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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
