Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
ITAT held that depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation remained allowable where the claim concerned the same block of intangible asset already accepted in the foundational year, with no new goodwill or distinguishing change shown. It further held that reassessment was barred by limitation under the post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA framework because the section 148 notice was issued beyond the surviving period, making the reassessment invalid. The Tribunal also affirmed that assessment framed in the name of a company which had already converted into an LLP was a nullity for want of jurisdiction. Finally, it upheld deletion of the section 14A disallowance because the Assessing Officer invoked Rule 8D without first recording the mandatory dissatisfaction under section 14A(2).
ITAT held that depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation remained allowable where the claim concerned the same block of intangible asset already accepted in the foundational year, with no new goodwill or distinguishing change shown. It further held that reassessment was barred by limitation under the post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA framework because the section 148 notice was issued beyond the surviving period, making the reassessment invalid. The Tribunal also affirmed that assessment framed in the name of a company which had already converted into an LLP was a nullity for want of jurisdiction. Finally, it upheld deletion of the section 14A disallowance because the Assessing Officer invoked Rule 8D without first recording the mandatory dissatisfaction under section 14A(2).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
