Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
