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...
Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
81 to 100 of 96510 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.