Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Passenger baggage re-export requires true declaration and cannot be granted indirectly through discretionary redemption of undeclared prohibited goods...
ITAT ruled favorably on multiple issues for the banking assessee. The tribunal allowed deduction under s.36(1)(viia) for NPA provisions, holding them equivalent to provisions for bad and doubtful debts. For s.14A disallowance, matter was remanded to examine administrative expenses allocation despite interest-free funds exceeding investments. Deduction under s.36(1)(vii) was permitted following prior precedent. RBI penalty payment was deemed allowable under s.37 as not being for legal infraction. Interest on Innovative Perpetual Debt Instruments (IPDI) qualified for deduction under s.36(1)(iii), recognizing these hybrid instruments as legitimate business borrowings despite their perpetual nature and discretionary payout features. The ruling primarily followed established banking sector precedents and emphasized substance over form.
ITAT ruled favorably on multiple issues for the banking assessee. The tribunal allowed deduction under s.36(1)(viia) for NPA provisions, holding them equivalent to provisions for bad and doubtful debts. For s.14A disallowance, matter was remanded to examine administrative expenses allocation despite interest-free funds exceeding investments. Deduction under s.36(1)(vii) was permitted following prior precedent. RBI penalty payment was deemed allowable under s.37 as not being for legal infraction. Interest on Innovative Perpetual Debt Instruments (IPDI) qualified for deduction under s.36(1)(iii), recognizing these hybrid instruments as legitimate business borrowings despite their perpetual nature and discretionary payout features. The ruling primarily followed established banking sector precedents and emphasized substance over form.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.