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 Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving a revision u/s 263 where the Commissioner held that the expenditure claimed by the assessee for payment to sub-contractors was not genuine. The AO had conducted an inquiry and accepted the claim based on relevant material. The work order served as tangible evidence of the agreement between parties. The Commissioner's doubts were based on suspicion, while the AO's decision was reasonable. The AO's inquiry, even if inadequate, did not render the order erroneous. The Commissioner cannot revise based solely on disagreement. The impugned order was set aside as unsustainable. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving a revision u/s 263 where the Commissioner held that the expenditure claimed by the assessee for payment to sub-contractors was not genuine. The AO had conducted an inquiry and accepted the claim based on relevant material. The work order served as tangible evidence of the agreement between parties. The Commissioner's doubts were based on suspicion, while the AO's decision was reasonable. The AO's inquiry, even if inadequate, did not render the order erroneous. The Commissioner cannot revise based solely on disagreement. The impugned order was set aside as unsustainable. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
