Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Quantification of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) depended on the expenditure approved in Form 3CL, not on the assessee's basic eligibility for the deduction. The Tribunal held that Form 3CL had already been sent to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer and therefore could not be rejected as additional evidence in rectification proceedings. Reading Rule 6(7A) for the relevant assessment year, the Assessing Officer was required to take cognizance of the approved expenditure and recompute the deduction accordingly. The impugned order was set aside and the issue was restored for fresh quantification after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Quantification of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) depended on the expenditure approved in Form 3CL, not on the assessee's basic eligibility for the deduction. The Tribunal held that Form 3CL had already been sent to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer and therefore could not be rejected as additional evidence in rectification proceedings. Reading Rule 6(7A) for the relevant assessment year, the Assessing Officer was required to take cognizance of the approved expenditure and recompute the deduction accordingly. The impugned order was set aside and the issue was restored for fresh quantification after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.