Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
