Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1481 to 1500 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4828 
Join Channel 
