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 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 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
