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...
Disallowance u/s 40A(3) for payments exceeding the prescribed limit should be examined considering the business exigencies. If the expenses are necessary for running the business and the revenue has no doubt about the payee's identity and transaction genuineness, disallowance is not required. In the given case, the excess payment may be necessary for the event management business, so the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) cannot be sustained. Deduction claimed u/s VI-A in returns filed in response to notice u/s 153A/B/C is allowed, as the decision in CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works is not applicable to such returns. The CIT(A)'s findings on this issue cannot be sustained. The Assessing Officer should calculate the refund of TDS to the appellant as per the Income Tax Act provisions. The CIT(A)'s view of restricting TDS credit to the appellant's name and business income assessed is not upheld.
Disallowance u/s 40A(3) for payments exceeding the prescribed limit should be examined considering the business exigencies. If the expenses are necessary for running the business and the revenue has no doubt about the payee's identity and transaction genuineness, disallowance is not required. In the given case, the excess payment may be necessary for the event management business, so the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) cannot be sustained. Deduction claimed u/s VI-A in returns filed in response to notice u/s 153A/B/C is allowed, as the decision in CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works is not applicable to such returns. The CIT(A)'s findings on this issue cannot be sustained. The Assessing Officer should calculate the refund of TDS to the appellant as per the Income Tax Act provisions. The CIT(A)'s view of restricting TDS credit to the appellant's name and business income assessed is not upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.