Proceeds of crime and money laundering: PMLA prosecution requires subsisting predicate offence; discharge of predicate accused precludes further prose...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6821 to 6840 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Issue was whether CPC could, in an intimation under s.143(1)(a)(ii), treat a belated return as an "incorrect claim" and deny deduction under s.80P for the relevant AY. Although coordinate benches had held that belated filing is not covered by the Explanation to "incorrect claim" and noted that a specific adjustment for such disallowance was introduced only by s.143(1)(a)(v) w.e.f. 01.04.2021, the Tribunal followed the binding precedent of the jurisdictional HC, which had upheld denial of s.80P in s.143(1)(a)(ii) where the return was not filed within s.139(1) due date; hence the intimation was sustained and the appeal was dismissed. - ITAT
Issue was whether CPC could, in an intimation under s.143(1)(a)(ii), treat a belated return as an "incorrect claim" and deny deduction under s.80P for the relevant AY. Although coordinate benches had held that belated filing is not covered by the Explanation to "incorrect claim" and noted that a specific adjustment for such disallowance was introduced only by s.143(1)(a)(v) w.e.f. 01.04.2021, the Tribunal followed the binding precedent of the jurisdictional HC, which had upheld denial of s.80P in s.143(1)(a)(ii) where the return was not filed within s.139(1) due date; hence the intimation was sustained and the appeal was dismissed. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.