Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Delhi High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal on the following issues: 1. Transfer Pricing adjustment on Advertising, Marketing and Promotional (AMP) expenditure was rejected in the absence of evidence establishing an arrangement or concerted action between the Indian entity and its Associated Enterprise. 2. Disallowance u/s 14A was not warranted as there was no exempt income earned in the concerned Assessment Years. 3. Disallowance of brand building expenditure u/s 37 was not justified. As per Section 48 of the Trade Marks Act, the assessee, being a licensee, was entitled to claim such expenditure as business expenditure, although it may have enhanced the brand of the overseas owner. 4. Disallowance based on seized material pertaining to preceding years was not merited in the absence of incriminating material for the concerned Assessment Years, following the Supreme Court's decision in Sinhgad Technical Education Society.
The Delhi High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal on the following issues: 1. Transfer Pricing adjustment on Advertising, Marketing and Promotional (AMP) expenditure was rejected in the absence of evidence establishing an arrangement or concerted action between the Indian entity and its Associated Enterprise. 2. Disallowance u/s 14A was not warranted as there was no exempt income earned in the concerned Assessment Years. 3. Disallowance of brand building expenditure u/s 37 was not justified. As per Section 48 of the Trade Marks Act, the assessee, being a licensee, was entitled to claim such expenditure as business expenditure, although it may have enhanced the brand of the overseas owner. 4. Disallowance based on seized material pertaining to preceding years was not merited in the absence of incriminating material for the concerned Assessment Years, following the Supreme Court's decision in Sinhgad Technical Education Society.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
