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" ?
The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal against disallowance under Section 40A(3) for cash payment of Rs. 30 lakhs towards property purchase. It was held that the genuineness and bona fide nature of the transaction, including the cash payment, could not be doubted. The tribunal relied on precedent affirming that Section 40A(3) is not absolute and permits consideration of business expediency and relevant facts. The payment was made at the seller's insistence, constituting legitimate business expediency. Consequently, the cash payment did not violate Section 40A(3), and the disallowance was unwarranted in the circumstances.
The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal against disallowance under Section 40A(3) for cash payment of Rs. 30 lakhs towards property purchase. It was held that the genuineness and bona fide nature of the transaction, including the cash payment, could not be doubted. The tribunal relied on precedent affirming that Section 40A(3) is not absolute and permits consideration of business expediency and relevant facts. The payment was made at the seller's insistence, constituting legitimate business expediency. Consequently, the cash payment did not violate Section 40A(3), and the disallowance was unwarranted in the circumstances.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.