Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
RPA (Remote Pilot Aircraft) for military use defined to include drones/UAV/UAS; exemptions limited to specified defence imports with Joint Secretary c...
Transfer of going concern and transfer of input tax credit under GST allowed; exemption applies though interstate ledger transfers left to authorities...
The dominant issue was whether advances/deposits written off under "administrative expenses" pursuant to a settlement with an associated party were allowable as revenue deduction under s.37(1) or as business loss under s.28, or were in substance capital outlay for acquisition of an MRI machine. The appellate authority had allowed the claim without examining whether any expenditure or business loss actually arose in the course of business, whether the assessee was in the business of advancing loans, whether there was any attempt to procure the alleged capital asset, and whether the timing and substance of successive agreements supported a genuine business transaction; it also relied on inapplicable precedents and did not consider the binding decision cited by the Revenue. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, and the Revenue's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. - ITAT
The dominant issue was whether advances/deposits written off under "administrative expenses" pursuant to a settlement with an associated party were allowable as revenue deduction under s.37(1) or as business loss under s.28, or were in substance capital outlay for acquisition of an MRI machine. The appellate authority had allowed the claim without examining whether any expenditure or business loss actually arose in the course of business, whether the assessee was in the business of advancing loans, whether there was any attempt to procure the alleged capital asset, and whether the timing and substance of successive agreements supported a genuine business transaction; it also relied on inapplicable precedents and did not consider the binding decision cited by the Revenue. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, and the Revenue's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
