Depositor-protection proceedings prevail over corporate insolvency, while liquidators may recover chit receivables using copies of seized company reco...
Intermediary service classification fails where overseas admission facilitation is supplied independently, preserving export treatment and small-provi...
Satellite transponder bandwidth is telecommunication, not Business Support Service; foreign non-telegraph providers triggered no service tax liability...
Commitment proceedings gain extended timelines, structured defect refiling, and automatic resumption of inquiry after the adjusted completion period e...
Centralised assessment transfer becomes unwarranted once the searched person's assessment is complete, requiring restoration to the appropriate charge...
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.