Agreement-date stamp valuation requires the same registered property, fixed consideration, and qualifying payment; an unrelated prior booking cannot a...
Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Page of 4883
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 97649 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 4883 
