Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Disallowing interest expenditure claimed u/s 36(1)(iii) when the assessee firm has interest-free funds and the amount overdrawn by partners. The Tribunal held that since the assessee firm had interest-free funds sufficient to cover the amounts overdrawn by partners, as evident from audited accounts, the disallowance of interest expenditure by the Assessing Officer was unjustified. The Tribunal relied on decisions of the Bombay High Court and its own coordinate Bench, which established that if an assessee has sufficient interest-free funds and advances are made without charging interest, disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) on such advances for notional interest is not permissible. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal, concluding that the Assessing Officer's adverse inference was a misreading of facts contrary to documented evidence provided by the assessee.
Disallowing interest expenditure claimed u/s 36(1)(iii) when the assessee firm has interest-free funds and the amount overdrawn by partners. The Tribunal held that since the assessee firm had interest-free funds sufficient to cover the amounts overdrawn by partners, as evident from audited accounts, the disallowance of interest expenditure by the Assessing Officer was unjustified. The Tribunal relied on decisions of the Bombay High Court and its own coordinate Bench, which established that if an assessee has sufficient interest-free funds and advances are made without charging interest, disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) on such advances for notional interest is not permissible. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal, concluding that the Assessing Officer's adverse inference was a misreading of facts contrary to documented evidence provided by the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
