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 ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1541 to 1560 of 96406 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Books of account of a project office cannot be rejected merely because no revenue was shown in the year and only expenditure was claimed; absent cogent material, such rejection is unsustainable, and the appellate deletion of its consequences was upheld. Additions made by treating a foreign exchange item as fees for technical services and by treating head office remittances as undisclosed income also failed because they were unsupported by substance or material evidence. The ITAT agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the assessee's project-office receipts and remittances did not justify the impugned additions, and it dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
Books of account of a project office cannot be rejected merely because no revenue was shown in the year and only expenditure was claimed; absent cogent material, such rejection is unsustainable, and the appellate deletion of its consequences was upheld. Additions made by treating a foreign exchange item as fees for technical services and by treating head office remittances as undisclosed income also failed because they were unsupported by substance or material evidence. The ITAT agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the assessee's project-office receipts and remittances did not justify the impugned additions, and it dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.