Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
The ITAT rectified its earlier appellate order under the mistake apparent from record doctrine by correcting the recorded basis for relief on corporate guarantee fee and MEIS export incentives. For the corporate guarantee issue, the correction clarified that non-interference rested on earlier-year acceptance by the TPO/AO at arm's length and absence of any change in facts, rather than on coordinate Bench rulings. For MEIS incentives, the order was amended to reflect reliance on Chennai, Delhi and Mumbai ITAT decisions and the Commissioner (Appeals)'s earlier-year orders. The miscellaneous application was allowed, and the substantive outcome remained unchanged.
The ITAT rectified its earlier appellate order under the mistake apparent from record doctrine by correcting the recorded basis for relief on corporate guarantee fee and MEIS export incentives. For the corporate guarantee issue, the correction clarified that non-interference rested on earlier-year acceptance by the TPO/AO at arm's length and absence of any change in facts, rather than on coordinate Bench rulings. For MEIS incentives, the order was amended to reflect reliance on Chennai, Delhi and Mumbai ITAT decisions and the Commissioner (Appeals)'s earlier-year orders. The miscellaneous application was allowed, and the substantive outcome remained unchanged.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
