Proceeds of crime and money laundering: PMLA prosecution requires subsisting predicate offence; discharge of predicate accused precludes further prose...
Validity of faceless assessment procedure challenged for jurisdictional AO intervention mid-remand, resulting in quashing of assessment for procedural...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6801 to 6820 of 96332 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 4817 
Join Channel 
