Validity of faceless assessment procedure challenged for jurisdictional AO intervention mid-remand, resulting in quashing of assessment for procedural...
Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
The High Court dealt with multiple MAT computation issues under Section 115JB, applying Apollo Tyres to hold that items not covered by Explanation 1, including foreign corporate tax and deferred revenue expenditure, could not be added back. It also accepted concurrent findings that state capital investment subsidy was a capital receipt, that expenditure on construction of a government-owned road was revenue in nature, and that wealth tax provision was not contemplated under the section. The appeal was admitted only on four issues: sales tax subsidy in book profit, provision for bad and doubtful debts, revenue from trial run production, and withdrawal from share premium account, to be heard with the connected appeal for the earlier year.
The High Court dealt with multiple MAT computation issues under Section 115JB, applying Apollo Tyres to hold that items not covered by Explanation 1, including foreign corporate tax and deferred revenue expenditure, could not be added back. It also accepted concurrent findings that state capital investment subsidy was a capital receipt, that expenditure on construction of a government-owned road was revenue in nature, and that wealth tax provision was not contemplated under the section. The appeal was admitted only on four issues: sales tax subsidy in book profit, provision for bad and doubtful debts, revenue from trial run production, and withdrawal from share premium account, to be heard with the connected appeal for the earlier year.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
