Reasonableness of Business Expenditure: payments to independent contractors with contractual nexus cannot be disallowed for excessiveness alone.

Assessment challenge concerned disallowance of payments to unrelated independent service providers as excessive. The note states that where payments are supported by contracts, delivered reports and a demonstrated business nexus, and the books are not rejected, disallowance solely for alleged excessiveness is unjustified absent findings invoking disallowance for lack of nexus or conduct of a best judgment assessment. Comparative differences in scope, location and complexity limit mechanical inter party comparisons, and domestic transfer pricing rules govern related party pricing issues. Operative effect: payments to independent contractors backed by contractual and factual evidence should not be disallowed on excessiveness alone.

---

---

Issues: Whether the additions/disallowances of business expenditure of Rs. 31,80,000 (payments to S P Jindal Financial Services Limited), Rs. 3,00,000 (payments to Bigthink Media Pvt Ltd) and Rs. 18,50,000 (payments to S P Jindal Marketing Limited) can be sustained on the ground of excessiveness/unreasonableness where payments were made to unrelated independent parties and the books of account were not rejected under Section 145(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The payments in dispute were made to unrelated and independent service providers for stock verification, MIS reporting and marketing services, with contract-based engagements and submitted stock verification / inventory reports. The statutory context includes provisions governing assessment proceedings (Section 143(1)(a), Section 143(2), Section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961) and the rule that reasonableness review of payments to related parties is addressed by domestic transfer pricing (Section 92BA of the Income-tax Act, 1961). Section 40A(2)(b) concerns disallowance where payments lack business nexus or are to relatives; here the parties are unrelated. The books of account were not rejected under Section 145(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, so the AO did not proceed to best judgment assessment on that basis. Comparative payment levels to other service providers and factual differences in scope, location and complexity of assignments limit any mechanical inter-party comparison. Where nexus to business purpose is established and payments are to independent unrelated parties under contract, disallowance solely on the ground of alleged excessiveness is not justified absent application of Section 40A(2)(b) or specific findings rejecting accounts under Section 145(3).

Conclusion: The disallowances of Rs. 31,80,000; Rs. 3,00,000; and Rs. 18,50,000 are set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee.

---