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...
In the ITAT Delhi case, the Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on two key issues. Firstly, regarding unexplained cash deposits u/s 68, the AO's failure to consider cash balances and debtor realizations led to the addition being deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition. Secondly, on the disallowance of interest paid u/s 36(1)(iii), the Tribunal accepted the assessee's argument that interest on bank loans is a business expenditure, given the assessee's history of real estate and finance business activities. The disallowance made by the AO was deleted based on the Tribunal's decision for the assessment year 2009-10, affirming the assessee's real estate business activities.
In the ITAT Delhi case, the Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on two key issues. Firstly, regarding unexplained cash deposits u/s 68, the AO's failure to consider cash balances and debtor realizations led to the addition being deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition. Secondly, on the disallowance of interest paid u/s 36(1)(iii), the Tribunal accepted the assessee's argument that interest on bank loans is a business expenditure, given the assessee's history of real estate and finance business activities. The disallowance made by the AO was deleted based on the Tribunal's decision for the assessment year 2009-10, affirming the assessee's real estate business activities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
