Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A partnership firm is a separate taxable entity under the Income-tax Act only from the date it comes into existence, so it cannot claim interest expenditure attributable to an earlier period when the business was still a proprietorship concern. The Tribunal held that the firm, having commenced on 15.06.2014, was entitled to deduct expenses only for its own period of existence and not for 01.04.2014 to 14.06.2014. The proportionate disallowance of interest made by the Assessing Officer and upheld in first appeal was therefore sustained. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned on sufficient cause.
A partnership firm is a separate taxable entity under the Income-tax Act only from the date it comes into existence, so it cannot claim interest expenditure attributable to an earlier period when the business was still a proprietorship concern. The Tribunal held that the firm, having commenced on 15.06.2014, was entitled to deduct expenses only for its own period of existence and not for 01.04.2014 to 14.06.2014. The proportionate disallowance of interest made by the Assessing Officer and upheld in first appeal was therefore sustained. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned on sufficient cause.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.