Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4823
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96456 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Penalty paid to RBI for breach of regulatory directions was treated as a regulatory levy and not as expenditure for an offence or infraction of law under Explanation 2 to section 37(1), so the deduction was allowed. CSR expenditure was disallowed because the record did not show that it exceeded the statutory CSR obligation, and prior decisions based on the pre-amendment position did not apply after insertion of Explanation 2. The Tribunal also reiterated that appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims not made before the Assessing Officer, so the bad-debt recovery issue was remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the PSLC taxability issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Penalty paid to RBI for breach of regulatory directions was treated as a regulatory levy and not as expenditure for an offence or infraction of law under Explanation 2 to section 37(1), so the deduction was allowed. CSR expenditure was disallowed because the record did not show that it exceeded the statutory CSR obligation, and prior decisions based on the pre-amendment position did not apply after insertion of Explanation 2. The Tribunal also reiterated that appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims not made before the Assessing Officer, so the bad-debt recovery issue was remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the PSLC taxability issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.