Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
The ITAT Delhi held that interest levied u/s 220(2) on non-payment of FBT demand, adjusted against a refund due, was not justified as no intimation or notice of demand was served on the assessee regarding the FBT liability u/s 115WE. The assessee had deposited the FBT demand suo motu, but it was still recovered from the refund along with interest. The tribunal found that the mere appearance of the demand on the e-filing portal did not absolve the Revenue from properly serving the intimation and demand notice. The Revenue failed to provide evidence of serving the notice. While the assessee had paid the FBT liability, it did not create an interest liability u/s 220(2). The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The ITAT Delhi held that interest levied u/s 220(2) on non-payment of FBT demand, adjusted against a refund due, was not justified as no intimation or notice of demand was served on the assessee regarding the FBT liability u/s 115WE. The assessee had deposited the FBT demand suo motu, but it was still recovered from the refund along with interest. The tribunal found that the mere appearance of the demand on the e-filing portal did not absolve the Revenue from properly serving the intimation and demand notice. The Revenue failed to provide evidence of serving the notice. While the assessee had paid the FBT liability, it did not create an interest liability u/s 220(2). The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
