Human-probability test defeats political donation deductions where banking records mask accommodation-entry fund layering rather than genuine contribu...
Electronic evidence and search statements in tax assessments require authenticity review and corroboration, while procedural manuals lack statutory fo...
Tariff rate quota authorisations govern preferential imports of specified New Zealand goods through export certification and electronic customs debiti...
Electronic Continuity Bond Registration replaces manual container permissions, with quarterly reporting and re-export monitoring for duty-free contain...
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.