Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Employee conflict disclosures and investment restrictions expand with new recusal duties, post-employment limits, and compliance reporting requirement...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
