Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
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 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
