Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 
