Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
