Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
HC rejected the assessee's claim for expenditure under 'debtors' head, finding insufficient evidence to support alleged trade practice of cash discounts. The Tribunal's findings were upheld, determining that the payments included non-revenue items like loan repayments and investments. The court concluded that without substantive proof of legitimate business expenditure, the original assessment stands. Appeals under Section 260A were dismissed, with questions answered in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, affirming the Tribunal's original determination of non-allowable expenditure.
HC rejected the assessee's claim for expenditure under 'debtors' head, finding insufficient evidence to support alleged trade practice of cash discounts. The Tribunal's findings were upheld, determining that the payments included non-revenue items like loan repayments and investments. The court concluded that without substantive proof of legitimate business expenditure, the original assessment stands. Appeals under Section 260A were dismissed, with questions answered in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, affirming the Tribunal's original determination of non-allowable expenditure.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.