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...
Whether an outstanding loan liability could be taxed as remission/cessation under s.41(1) was rejected because s.41(1) requires a prior allowance/deduction and a trading liability that is remitted/ceased, typically evidenced by write-back/credit to P&L; here the amount was a capital loan used to repay a bank loan, no expenditure had been debited, no recovery was shown, and the liability remained acknowledged and continuously outstanding in the books, hence deletion of the addition was upheld. The plea of breach of r.46A failed as no additional evidence was filed before the first appellate authority, so r.46A was not attracted. Explanation 1 to s.41(1) was held inapplicable due to absence of any unilateral write-off of a trading liability. - ITAT
Whether an outstanding loan liability could be taxed as remission/cessation under s.41(1) was rejected because s.41(1) requires a prior allowance/deduction and a trading liability that is remitted/ceased, typically evidenced by write-back/credit to P&L; here the amount was a capital loan used to repay a bank loan, no expenditure had been debited, no recovery was shown, and the liability remained acknowledged and continuously outstanding in the books, hence deletion of the addition was upheld. The plea of breach of r.46A failed as no additional evidence was filed before the first appellate authority, so r.46A was not attracted. Explanation 1 to s.41(1) was held inapplicable due to absence of any unilateral write-off of a trading liability. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.