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 ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Page of 4824
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1601 to 1620 of 96463 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Leave encashment exemption under section 10(10AA)(ii) was held to remain capped at Rs. 3 lakh for the year under consideration, because the enhanced limit notified later operated only prospectively from 01.04.2023. The ITAT accepted that the limit should have been revised earlier, but followed the Kerala High Court in Ramesan P. A. and held that retrospective revision could not be directed since issuance of the notification was a matter of executive policy. The Delhi High Court notice order relied on by the assessee in Kamal Kumar Kalia was not treated as binding. The appeal was dismissed and the section 143(1) adjustment sustained.
Leave encashment exemption under section 10(10AA)(ii) was held to remain capped at Rs. 3 lakh for the year under consideration, because the enhanced limit notified later operated only prospectively from 01.04.2023. The ITAT accepted that the limit should have been revised earlier, but followed the Kerala High Court in Ramesan P. A. and held that retrospective revision could not be directed since issuance of the notification was a matter of executive policy. The Delhi High Court notice order relied on by the assessee in Kamal Kumar Kalia was not treated as binding. The appeal was dismissed and the section 143(1) adjustment sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
