Search and seizure: abatement of earlier search bars use of prior seized material in later search-based assessments; relief limited to new documents f...
Admission of additional evidence under remand rules must await a meaningful remand report; failure to do so breaches natural justice and mandates rema...
Export Obligation Discharge Certificates for EPCG compliance cannot be questioned by Customs unless DGFT adjudicates and cancels them, so demands quas...
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 
