Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Disallowance under s.14A r/w r.8D was examined where the taxpayer had made a suo motu disallowance against exempt income. Since r.8D is not automatic, the AO could invoke it only after examining the taxpayer's accounts and recording satisfaction under s.14A(2) that the taxpayer's claim was incorrect; a mere remark that the disallowance was "very low" did not meet this statutory requirement. Applying this mandatory satisfaction test, as reiterated in Maxopp, the r.8D-based incremental disallowance was held bad in law and deleted, restricting disallowance to the taxpayer's suo motu amount; the appeal was allowed. - ITAT
Disallowance under s.14A r/w r.8D was examined where the taxpayer had made a suo motu disallowance against exempt income. Since r.8D is not automatic, the AO could invoke it only after examining the taxpayer's accounts and recording satisfaction under s.14A(2) that the taxpayer's claim was incorrect; a mere remark that the disallowance was "very low" did not meet this statutory requirement. Applying this mandatory satisfaction test, as reiterated in Maxopp, the r.8D-based incremental disallowance was held bad in law and deleted, restricting disallowance to the taxpayer's suo motu amount; the appeal was allowed. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.