Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1641 to 1660 of 96508 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 4826 
Join Channel 
