Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
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.