Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee-trust, holding that the addition of Rs. 44,00,000/- made under s. 143(1) was unsustainable. The CPC had accepted all deductions claimed under ss. 11 and 10(23C), but committed an arithmetical error by incorrectly totaling the deductions at Rs. 7,52,41,564/- instead of Rs. 7,96,41,565/-. This miscalculation led to an erroneous computation of income purportedly chargeable under s. 11(1B), though the figure of Rs. 44,00,000/- was consistently reflected by both the assessee and CPC. ITAT held that the variation stemmed solely from CPC's totaling mistake, not from any disallowance or difference in claim, and therefore directed deletion of the entire addition.
The ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee-trust, holding that the addition of Rs. 44,00,000/- made under s. 143(1) was unsustainable. The CPC had accepted all deductions claimed under ss. 11 and 10(23C), but committed an arithmetical error by incorrectly totaling the deductions at Rs. 7,52,41,564/- instead of Rs. 7,96,41,565/-. This miscalculation led to an erroneous computation of income purportedly chargeable under s. 11(1B), though the figure of Rs. 44,00,000/- was consistently reflected by both the assessee and CPC. ITAT held that the variation stemmed solely from CPC's totaling mistake, not from any disallowance or difference in claim, and therefore directed deletion of the entire addition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
