Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Disallowance of interest difference between the rate paid on borrowed capital and the rate advanced to a wholly owned subsidiary is not warranted. The Supreme Court in S.A. Builders held that advancing funds by a holding company to its subsidiary for commercial expediency does not warrant disallowance of interest, even if not charged. The Delhi Tribunal in Moonrock Hospitality ruled that where funds were advanced to a wholly owned subsidiary for business purposes, no interest paid on borrowed funds could be disallowed u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. Following these precedents, the Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest paid on borrowed funds was permissible and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.
Disallowance of interest difference between the rate paid on borrowed capital and the rate advanced to a wholly owned subsidiary is not warranted. The Supreme Court in S.A. Builders held that advancing funds by a holding company to its subsidiary for commercial expediency does not warrant disallowance of interest, even if not charged. The Delhi Tribunal in Moonrock Hospitality ruled that where funds were advanced to a wholly owned subsidiary for business purposes, no interest paid on borrowed funds could be disallowed u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. Following these precedents, the Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest paid on borrowed funds was permissible and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
