Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
The assessee claimed expenditure relating to financial advisor's fees, which was disallowed u/s 57(iii) as it did not relate to earning such income. However, the CIT(A) deleted the addition, and the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following the Supreme Court's judgment in Rajendra Prasad Moody's case, as the assessee had a legal dispute pending related to earning income during the year. Regarding the disallowance u/s 37(1) for expenses incurred on bills/vouchers, the ITAT rejected the Revenue's ground, as the AO made an ad-hoc disallowance without pointing out any specific element of such expenditure. The CIT(A) rightly deleted the ad-hoc disallowance, as the expenses were necessary and genuine for the business or profession, as substantiated by the assessee.
The assessee claimed expenditure relating to financial advisor's fees, which was disallowed u/s 57(iii) as it did not relate to earning such income. However, the CIT(A) deleted the addition, and the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following the Supreme Court's judgment in Rajendra Prasad Moody's case, as the assessee had a legal dispute pending related to earning income during the year. Regarding the disallowance u/s 37(1) for expenses incurred on bills/vouchers, the ITAT rejected the Revenue's ground, as the AO made an ad-hoc disallowance without pointing out any specific element of such expenditure. The CIT(A) rightly deleted the ad-hoc disallowance, as the expenses were necessary and genuine for the business or profession, as substantiated by the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
