Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
