Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
Insurer's investment gains and investment write-downs face Section 263 revision; enquiry upheld, Rule 5(b)(ii) lapse sustained, late corrigendum quash...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7241 to 7260 of 96333 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.