Trademark depreciation and section 14A adjustments: ITAT applies consistency, independent book-profit computation, and no disallowance without exempt ...
Rebuttable search presumptions and corroboration standards shaped deletion of unsubstantiated additions, while rental income and limited profit estima...
Overlapping GST proceedings were not examined on merits in writ jurisdiction because the petitioner had not participated in the second proceedings to place the alleged overlap before the proper officer. The Court noted that the identity of demand was not enough for immediate merits review and held that rectification under Section 161 remained the appropriate first remedy, as the six-month period had not expired. The petitioner was allowed to seek rectification within two weeks, to be decided after hearing, with liberty to pursue any available appellate remedy thereafter. The Court left the merits of the overlap objection open.
Overlapping GST proceedings were not examined on merits in writ jurisdiction because the petitioner had not participated in the second proceedings to place the alleged overlap before the proper officer. The Court noted that the identity of demand was not enough for immediate merits review and held that rectification under Section 161 remained the appropriate first remedy, as the six-month period had not expired. The petitioner was allowed to seek rectification within two weeks, to be decided after hearing, with liberty to pursue any available appellate remedy thereafter. The Court left the merits of the overlap objection open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
