https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285701 Section 14A disallowance was held to be covered by binding precedent, including Mcdonalds's India (P.) Ltd., and the point was decided against the Revenue. The second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) was also treated as covered by the Court's earlier ruling in Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd. for Assessment Year 2010-11, again against the Revenue. As both questions were concluded by precedent, no substantial question of law arose in the revenue appeal, and the appeal was dismissed. en-us Wed, 28 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Jan 2020 21:07:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285701 Section 14A disallowance was held to be covered by binding precedent, including Mcdonalds's India (P.) Ltd., and the point was decided against the Revenue. The second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) was also treated as covered by the Court's earlier ruling in Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd. for Assessment Year 2010-11, again against the Revenue. As both questions were concluded by precedent, no substantial question of law arose in the revenue appeal, and the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 28 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285701