Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4784
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95673 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Legal and professional charges incurred by the assessee company were disallowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the grounds that they were capital expenditure and personal expenses not wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The Tribunal held that no payment was made as penalty, and the expenses were incurred for defending the company in the ordinary course of business to protect its image and ensure smooth conduct of operations. The payments were made through banking channels after TDS deduction, with identifiable payees, and supported by documentary evidence. They did not fall under the ambit of Explanation 1 to Section 37 as penal, capital or personal in nature. The Tribunal opined that the payments were mere fees paid to advocates for defending the company's case, akin to fees for income tax disputes, and hence allowable as deduction. The AO was directed to allow the deduction.
Legal and professional charges incurred by the assessee company were disallowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the grounds that they were capital expenditure and personal expenses not wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The Tribunal held that no payment was made as penalty, and the expenses were incurred for defending the company in the ordinary course of business to protect its image and ensure smooth conduct of operations. The payments were made through banking channels after TDS deduction, with identifiable payees, and supported by documentary evidence. They did not fall under the ambit of Explanation 1 to Section 37 as penal, capital or personal in nature. The Tribunal opined that the payments were mere fees paid to advocates for defending the company's case, akin to fees for income tax disputes, and hence allowable as deduction. The AO was directed to allow the deduction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.