Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT ruled in favor of taxpayer regarding expenses claimed under contractual arrangement with Max Life Insurance. The disputed amount, though related to service tax, was determined to be a legitimate business expense under Section 37. The payment was made to secure commission income from insurance auxiliary services, not as service tax liability which belonged to Max Life under reverse charge mechanism. The tribunal rejected AO's contention, noting that Service Tax Rules 1994 Section 2(1)(d) placed liability on Max Life. The contractual arrangement to share costs was deemed legal, not prohibited by Section 37's Explanation, and qualified as allowable business expenditure. Appeal allowed.
ITAT ruled in favor of taxpayer regarding expenses claimed under contractual arrangement with Max Life Insurance. The disputed amount, though related to service tax, was determined to be a legitimate business expense under Section 37. The payment was made to secure commission income from insurance auxiliary services, not as service tax liability which belonged to Max Life under reverse charge mechanism. The tribunal rejected AO's contention, noting that Service Tax Rules 1994 Section 2(1)(d) placed liability on Max Life. The contractual arrangement to share costs was deemed legal, not prohibited by Section 37's Explanation, and qualified as allowable business expenditure. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.