Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
ITAT allowed appellant's appeal regarding disallowance under section 40(A)(2)(b) for consultancy and development charges. The Revenue failed to discharge its burden of proving payments were excessive or unreasonable by not providing comparable instances or establishing fair market price benchmarks. Following precedent from another case, ITAT held that absent comparable evidence demonstrating excessiveness, the Assessing Officer cannot invoke section 40(A)(2)(b) disallowance provisions. The initial onus lies with Revenue to substantiate claims of unreasonable payments through proper market analysis and comparable transactions. Since no such exercise was undertaken and no attempt made to establish professional fees were excessive, the disallowance was deleted and appeal allowed.
ITAT allowed appellant's appeal regarding disallowance under section 40(A)(2)(b) for consultancy and development charges. The Revenue failed to discharge its burden of proving payments were excessive or unreasonable by not providing comparable instances or establishing fair market price benchmarks. Following precedent from another case, ITAT held that absent comparable evidence demonstrating excessiveness, the Assessing Officer cannot invoke section 40(A)(2)(b) disallowance provisions. The initial onus lies with Revenue to substantiate claims of unreasonable payments through proper market analysis and comparable transactions. Since no such exercise was undertaken and no attempt made to establish professional fees were excessive, the disallowance was deleted and appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
