Revenue authority mandates using scheme-specific reversal procedures, not revising original entries, for instrument-based trade/customs benefits effec...
Transaction value under s.15(1) governs unrelated sales; valuation between related parties per Rule 28; consignment note required for unregistered rec...
HC dismissed the appeals. The court held that payments characterized as a licence fee for use of goodwill and a name were consideration for exploitation of goodwill, not a revenue-sharing arrangement; linking the fee to a percentage of the practice's billing constituted a measurement mechanism, not a profit-splitting scheme, and did not contravene Bar Council rules. Reliance on a medical-regulation precedent was rejected as inapposite, the prohibition thereon being regulatory and specific to the medical field. The deletion of an ad hoc 5% disallowance on travelling and entertainment expenses was upheld as correctly set aside by the appellate authorities. No substantial question of law arises.
HC dismissed the appeals. The court held that payments characterized as a licence fee for use of goodwill and a name were consideration for exploitation of goodwill, not a revenue-sharing arrangement; linking the fee to a percentage of the practice's billing constituted a measurement mechanism, not a profit-splitting scheme, and did not contravene Bar Council rules. Reliance on a medical-regulation precedent was rejected as inapposite, the prohibition thereon being regulatory and specific to the medical field. The deletion of an ad hoc 5% disallowance on travelling and entertainment expenses was upheld as correctly set aside by the appellate authorities. No substantial question of law arises.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
