Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Consultancy charges paid to a director were disallowed u/s 40A(2). The assessee justified the payment, citing the director's expertise, experience, and reasonableness compared to the business size. The ITAT held that the AO cannot judge the expenditure's reasonableness unless proven excessive compared to market rates. The Madras High Court ruled that expenditure reasonableness must be judged from a businessman's viewpoint, not Revenue's, unless excessive payment is proven. The assessee's project started generating revenue, justifying the increased payment. The payment complied with the Companies Act, TDS was deducted, and the director offered it for tax. The AO failed to demonstrate the payment's excessiveness or unreasonableness. Merely disallowing the differential without establishing unreasonableness was incorrect. The disallowance was deleted in favor of the assessee.
Consultancy charges paid to a director were disallowed u/s 40A(2). The assessee justified the payment, citing the director's expertise, experience, and reasonableness compared to the business size. The ITAT held that the AO cannot judge the expenditure's reasonableness unless proven excessive compared to market rates. The Madras High Court ruled that expenditure reasonableness must be judged from a businessman's viewpoint, not Revenue's, unless excessive payment is proven. The assessee's project started generating revenue, justifying the increased payment. The payment complied with the Companies Act, TDS was deducted, and the director offered it for tax. The AO failed to demonstrate the payment's excessiveness or unreasonableness. Merely disallowing the differential without establishing unreasonableness was incorrect. The disallowance was deleted in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
