Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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 
