Condonation of Delay: directoral disputes and pending company proceedings can constitute reasonable cause, allowing a belated return to be treated as ...
Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 upheld; faceless assessments subject to revision when AO fails requisite enquiries, remitted for fresh asse...
Limited scope of processing under section 143(1): enhancement without show cause is unsustainable; remand for residency, taxation and TDS verification...
Suo motu disallowance claimed in the return relating to...
Disallowance under tax law for investment expenses cannot be applied mechanically; authority must record clear reasons before increasing assessee's suo motu deduction.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Suo motu disallowance claimed in the return relating to investment-related expenses cannot be rejected mechanically; the tax authority must record clear findings explaining why the assessee's suo motu disallowance and the supporting accountant's report are unacceptable and must demonstrate bona fide satisfaction and objective reasons before invoking the disallowance rule beyond the assessee's amount. Prior precedent on identical questions precluded reopening those issues, and the appellate tribunal's restriction on additional disallowance was upheld. The appeal was dismissed to the extent the earlier rulings governed the same questions.
Suo motu disallowance claimed in the return relating to investment-related expenses cannot be rejected mechanically; the tax authority must record clear findings explaining why the assessee's suo motu disallowance and the supporting accountant's report are unacceptable and must demonstrate bona fide satisfaction and objective reasons before invoking the disallowance rule beyond the assessee's amount. Prior precedent on identical questions precluded reopening those issues, and the appellate tribunal's restriction on additional disallowance was upheld. The appeal was dismissed to the extent the earlier rulings governed the same questions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.