Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Customs Assessment Portal centralises classification and valuation guidance to support consistent, transparent and informed compliance across stakehol...
Page of 4918
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 98359 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Challenge to assessment as violative of s.144B/CBDT instructions and for denial of opportunity failed because statutory notices were issued, the proposed disallowance was communicated, and no specific prejudice from refusal of evidence or arbitrary denial of adjournment was shown; hence the assessment was not void. Disallowance in principle of excess cane price over FRP could not be rejected merely on broad claims, as no cost-based justification or contemporaneous material was produced to show the entire differential was commercially driven; however, the impugned quantification did not follow the Tasgaon methodology and was not sustainable. For the year in question, deduction of the final cane price was allowable in full under s.36(1)(xvii) due to unrebutted State Government approval, rendering further profit-embedded segregation unnecessary; sustained disallowance was deleted and set-off of brought-forward depreciation was directed. - ITAT
Challenge to assessment as violative of s.144B/CBDT instructions and for denial of opportunity failed because statutory notices were issued, the proposed disallowance was communicated, and no specific prejudice from refusal of evidence or arbitrary denial of adjournment was shown; hence the assessment was not void. Disallowance in principle of excess cane price over FRP could not be rejected merely on broad claims, as no cost-based justification or contemporaneous material was produced to show the entire differential was commercially driven; however, the impugned quantification did not follow the Tasgaon methodology and was not sustainable. For the year in question, deduction of the final cane price was allowable in full under s.36(1)(xvii) due to unrebutted State Government approval, rendering further profit-embedded segregation unnecessary; sustained disallowance was deleted and set-off of brought-forward depreciation was directed. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
