Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
