Toy balloon tariff classification: functional heading prevails over residual rubber and festive article headings, supporting penalties for deliberate ...
Customs valuation using comparable contemporaneous imports can displace declared value, while missing speaking orders require pursuit before competent...
Foreign customs declarations and importer admissions established undervaluation, supporting sequential value redetermination, differential duty, and m...
Customs seizure safeguards prevent detention-based limitation avoidance and invalidate provisional release conditions for imported vehicles under an i...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
