Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
Section 10A relief was denied on the claim that 31 units were...
Section 10A and related deductions: Tribunal rejects separate-undertaking claim, but allows loss set-off, ESOP cost and foreign tax credit in principle.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Section 10A relief was denied on the claim that 31 units were separate undertakings, because the Tribunal followed its earlier year order, as affirmed by the Delhi HC, and found no new factual material to reopen that position. By contrast, it allowed or accepted in principle several other claims: losses of eligible units were held set offable after the 2001 amendment, depreciation at 60% was allowed on computer peripherals integral to the system, Rule 8D disallowance under section 14A was deleted as prospective, and ESOP discount was treated as allowable employee cost subject to verification. Foreign tax credit was not denied merely because income was section 10A-deductible, while issues on foreign branch profits, software licence fee and creditor balances were remanded for factual verification.
Section 10A relief was denied on the claim that 31 units were separate undertakings, because the Tribunal followed its earlier year order, as affirmed by the Delhi HC, and found no new factual material to reopen that position. By contrast, it allowed or accepted in principle several other claims: losses of eligible units were held set offable after the 2001 amendment, depreciation at 60% was allowed on computer peripherals integral to the system, Rule 8D disallowance under section 14A was deleted as prospective, and ESOP discount was treated as allowable employee cost subject to verification. Foreign tax credit was not denied merely because income was section 10A-deductible, while issues on foreign branch profits, software licence fee and creditor balances were remanded for factual verification.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.