Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
In a recent High Court case, the issue of whether advertisement expenditure could be considered as allowable revenue expenditure was discussed. The ITAT allowed the claim, citing a previous decision where the Tribunal's judgment was accepted by the Revenue. The Court agreed with the assessee, stating that the Revenue cannot raise a question of law if it had accepted the Tribunal's finding in a previous year. Regarding Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) payments, the Court followed a previous decision in favor of the assessee. Advances for Project Development were also treated as revenue expenses. Expenses related to workmen and staff welfare were allowed u/s 40A(9), following the principles established in a Supreme Court case. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision in the assessee's favor based on consistency with a previous year's ruling.
In a recent High Court case, the issue of whether advertisement expenditure could be considered as allowable revenue expenditure was discussed. The ITAT allowed the claim, citing a previous decision where the Tribunal's judgment was accepted by the Revenue. The Court agreed with the assessee, stating that the Revenue cannot raise a question of law if it had accepted the Tribunal's finding in a previous year. Regarding Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) payments, the Court followed a previous decision in favor of the assessee. Advances for Project Development were also treated as revenue expenses. Expenses related to workmen and staff welfare were allowed u/s 40A(9), following the principles established in a Supreme Court case. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision in the assessee's favor based on consistency with a previous year's ruling.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.