Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
Denial of Preferential Treatment under SAFTA overturned where unchallenged Country of Origin certificate warranted exemption under Notification benefi...
Continuing offence of money-laundering: discharge set aside and proceedings reinstated where laundering continued after inclusion of predicate offence...
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.