Timing mismatch in income recognition requires verification whether receipts were already taxed in an earlier year; matter remitted for fresh examinat...
FOB transaction value and export incentives: customs valuation cannot override contractual export benefits or support confiscation without valid proof...
Deduction under section 35(1)(ii) was denied because the recipient trust lacked valid recognition beyond 31.03.2006 and post 2006 certificates/receipts were treated as forged or invalid; ITAT upheld disallowance, endorsing the Commissioner(Appeals) reliance on CBDT instructions and precedent. Separately, weighted deductions under section 80 IA for an effluent treatment plant and steam generation were refused for failure to furnish the statutory audit report/Form 10CCB within the prescribed period; ITAT applied the principle of strict/substantial compliance of fiscal formalities and held the conditions precedent unmet, so deductions could not be allowed. Appeals dismissed on both grounds.
Deduction under section 35(1)(ii) was denied because the recipient trust lacked valid recognition beyond 31.03.2006 and post 2006 certificates/receipts were treated as forged or invalid; ITAT upheld disallowance, endorsing the Commissioner(Appeals) reliance on CBDT instructions and precedent. Separately, weighted deductions under section 80 IA for an effluent treatment plant and steam generation were refused for failure to furnish the statutory audit report/Form 10CCB within the prescribed period; ITAT applied the principle of strict/substantial compliance of fiscal formalities and held the conditions precedent unmet, so deductions could not be allowed. Appeals dismissed on both grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.