Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The assessee failed to substantiate the provision made for freight, material handling charges, and IT support expenses as an allowable expenditure. The assessee merely stated that provisions were made on an accrual basis without providing any evidence or documents to demonstrate that they were calculated scientifically or based on previous years' trends. Despite being asked to furnish the basis for making provisions during assessment proceedings and before the ITAT, the assessee did not submit any documents. The assessee only provided a list of entities to whom payments were made in subsequent years, which did not establish that services were received from them during the relevant assessment year. As per the Income Tax Act and Supreme Court ruling, provisions are not allowable expenses unless proven to be made on a scientific basis. Since the assessee admitted the provisions were estimated and failed to substantiate the scientific basis, the disallowance of provisions as allowable expenditure was upheld.
The assessee failed to substantiate the provision made for freight, material handling charges, and IT support expenses as an allowable expenditure. The assessee merely stated that provisions were made on an accrual basis without providing any evidence or documents to demonstrate that they were calculated scientifically or based on previous years' trends. Despite being asked to furnish the basis for making provisions during assessment proceedings and before the ITAT, the assessee did not submit any documents. The assessee only provided a list of entities to whom payments were made in subsequent years, which did not establish that services were received from them during the relevant assessment year. As per the Income Tax Act and Supreme Court ruling, provisions are not allowable expenses unless proven to be made on a scientific basis. Since the assessee admitted the provisions were estimated and failed to substantiate the scientific basis, the disallowance of provisions as allowable expenditure was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.