Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
741 to 760 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
