Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Income under the head 'business and profession' would be earned by incurring relevant expenditure. While unjustified expenditure could be disallowed, there are limits to the documentation and evidence a normal business would maintain. The assessee meticulously maintained documents, deducted tax at source on payments to vendors executing turnkey projects. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the limits on evidence a business entity would have to justify expenditure. The assessee provided detailed documents justifying the expenditure incurred. Relying on judicial precedents, the burden of proof on the assessee regarding proving expenditure u/s 37(1) has limits and cannot be mainly disallowed on the grounds adopted by the Assessing Officer. Disallowance u/s 37(1) was deleted, decided in favor of the assessee.
Income under the head 'business and profession' would be earned by incurring relevant expenditure. While unjustified expenditure could be disallowed, there are limits to the documentation and evidence a normal business would maintain. The assessee meticulously maintained documents, deducted tax at source on payments to vendors executing turnkey projects. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the limits on evidence a business entity would have to justify expenditure. The assessee provided detailed documents justifying the expenditure incurred. Relying on judicial precedents, the burden of proof on the assessee regarding proving expenditure u/s 37(1) has limits and cannot be mainly disallowed on the grounds adopted by the Assessing Officer. Disallowance u/s 37(1) was deleted, decided in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
