Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
441 to 460 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Allowability of contractual damages claimed as expenses under section 37 was decided by ITAT: the Tribunal held that sums deducted by the government for late supply were compensatory damages for breach of contract and not payments for an "offence" or activity prohibited by law, so Explanation to section 37 did not apply. The Tribunal reasoned that mere failure to meet contractual timelines does not constitute a crime; the payments were incurred wholly and exclusively for business and therefore deductible as business expenditure, allowing the appeal and setting aside the disallowance.
Allowability of contractual damages claimed as expenses under section 37 was decided by ITAT: the Tribunal held that sums deducted by the government for late supply were compensatory damages for breach of contract and not payments for an "offence" or activity prohibited by law, so Explanation to section 37 did not apply. The Tribunal reasoned that mere failure to meet contractual timelines does not constitute a crime; the payments were incurred wholly and exclusively for business and therefore deductible as business expenditure, allowing the appeal and setting aside the disallowance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.