Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
Embezzlement losses in charitable institutions remain allowable when misappropriation is established, irrecoverable, and not a specified-person benefi...
National long-distance undertaking status supports deduction where separately licensed infrastructure, resources, revenue, and expenditure establish c...
Page of 4888
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 97750 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.