Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer cannot disallow losses merely based on assumptions and surmises regarding the commercial expediency of transactions undertaken by the assessee. The transaction for sale and purchase of dies was a pure commercial transaction entered into by the assessee in its commercial wisdom, and the fact that the assessee incurred a loss in the said transaction was not disputed. There was no allegation of any undisclosed consideration or clandestine transaction to reverse the loss. The Assessing Officer made the addition solely based on their perception of what was commercially expedient, which is not within their purview. The assessee had justified its commercial decision by reflecting enhanced turnover and profits from its business, but even if profits were not earned, it would not make a difference, as the examination is limited to whether the transactions were genuine, not whether they were commercially expedient. The High Court found no material other than suspicion to justify the addition and decided in favor of the assessee.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer cannot disallow losses merely based on assumptions and surmises regarding the commercial expediency of transactions undertaken by the assessee. The transaction for sale and purchase of dies was a pure commercial transaction entered into by the assessee in its commercial wisdom, and the fact that the assessee incurred a loss in the said transaction was not disputed. There was no allegation of any undisclosed consideration or clandestine transaction to reverse the loss. The Assessing Officer made the addition solely based on their perception of what was commercially expedient, which is not within their purview. The assessee had justified its commercial decision by reflecting enhanced turnover and profits from its business, but even if profits were not earned, it would not make a difference, as the examination is limited to whether the transactions were genuine, not whether they were commercially expedient. The High Court found no material other than suspicion to justify the addition and decided in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
