Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT held that the assessee had actually declared dividend of Rs. 22.67 crores and paid DDT of Rs. 4.61 crores thereon, and that the higher figure of Rs. 27.26 crores in the ROI was an inadvertent inclusion of DDT in the dividend figure. ITAT noted that the assessee had substantiated this with financial statements before CPC and the AO, and that the AO's reliance solely on the ROI figure was unjustified. The addition made towards excess DDT liability was therefore held to be unsustainable and directed to be deleted. On depreciation for assets acquired pursuant to demerger from a state entity, ITAT followed its earlier years' decisions and upheld the assessee's depreciation claim, allowing the appeal.
ITAT held that the assessee had actually declared dividend of Rs. 22.67 crores and paid DDT of Rs. 4.61 crores thereon, and that the higher figure of Rs. 27.26 crores in the ROI was an inadvertent inclusion of DDT in the dividend figure. ITAT noted that the assessee had substantiated this with financial statements before CPC and the AO, and that the AO's reliance solely on the ROI figure was unjustified. The addition made towards excess DDT liability was therefore held to be unsustainable and directed to be deleted. On depreciation for assets acquired pursuant to demerger from a state entity, ITAT followed its earlier years' decisions and upheld the assessee's depreciation claim, allowing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
