Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
