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 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.