Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 96001 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.