I.T.A. NO. 1601/KB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 31ST JANUARY, 2002. versus I.T.A. NO. 1601/KB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 31ST JANUARY, 2002.
Section 23 (1) (xviii), 28 and Second Schedule, CL (116) Assessing the payment of compensation to the investment adviser, whose appraisal officer first appellate authority has asked the same department to allow the first appellate There was no authority. It is permissible to instruct the investment adviser to allow compensation, despite the fact that the said expenses were also used on investment of the nature of the investment and a reasonable proportion had to be allowed because the appellate first appellate authority had reasonably It was directed after the certification as the Assessing Officer had failed to establish a nexus between expenditure up to the income received from the capital appropriated by the First Appellate Authority and did not require interference by the Appellate Tribunal. Appeal dismissed.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
