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...
Dividend income was treated at processing as falling under s.10(34) and taxed beyond ₹10 lakh by applying s.115BBDA on the premise that it arose from domestic companies. On evidence showing the dividend was from mutual funds and was necessarily reported in Schedule EI without bifurcation, the Tribunal held that such income squarely falls under s.10(35) and is fully exempt, rendering s.115BBDA inapplicable; the corresponding addition was deleted. On the claimed capital loss, since the first appellate authority had directed verification and allowance if found correct and the supporting documents were on record, no interference was warranted and the ground was allowed for statistical purposes. - ITAT
Dividend income was treated at processing as falling under s.10(34) and taxed beyond ₹10 lakh by applying s.115BBDA on the premise that it arose from domestic companies. On evidence showing the dividend was from mutual funds and was necessarily reported in Schedule EI without bifurcation, the Tribunal held that such income squarely falls under s.10(35) and is fully exempt, rendering s.115BBDA inapplicable; the corresponding addition was deleted. On the claimed capital loss, since the first appellate authority had directed verification and allowance if found correct and the supporting documents were on record, no interference was warranted and the ground was allowed for statistical purposes. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.