Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6361 to 6380 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" ?
Revision under s.263 was examined on multiple deductions. Corporate club membership fees were held to be business expenditure under s.37(1), supported by binding precedent, hence the AO's allowance was not "erroneous"; revision was set aside on this issue. ESOP expense was treated as incurred in the course of business with nexus to employee compensation and consistent judicial acceptance; the AO's view was plausible, so revision failed on this issue. CSR outgo, once disallowed under s.37(1), could still qualify for s.80G if conditions were met; mere difference of opinion could not sustain s.263, so revision was quashed. Stock exchange "penalties" were compensatory charges for procedural lapses, not hit by Expln.1 to s.37(1); revision was rejected. Interest under s.36(1)(iii) lacked nexus with CWIP; proviso was inapplicable and revision was invalid; assessee's appeal allowed. - ITAT
Revision under s.263 was examined on multiple deductions. Corporate club membership fees were held to be business expenditure under s.37(1), supported by binding precedent, hence the AO's allowance was not "erroneous"; revision was set aside on this issue. ESOP expense was treated as incurred in the course of business with nexus to employee compensation and consistent judicial acceptance; the AO's view was plausible, so revision failed on this issue. CSR outgo, once disallowed under s.37(1), could still qualify for s.80G if conditions were met; mere difference of opinion could not sustain s.263, so revision was quashed. Stock exchange "penalties" were compensatory charges for procedural lapses, not hit by Expln.1 to s.37(1); revision was rejected. Interest under s.36(1)(iii) lacked nexus with CWIP; proviso was inapplicable and revision was invalid; assessee's appeal allowed. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
