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 the appellant's appeal, holding that remuneration paid by a partnership to a partner falls within section 28(v) as business income, and therefore expenditures incurred wholly and exclusively for earning that remuneration are deductible under sections 32 and 37. The Tribunal applied the rule of consistency, noting prior allowance of similar deductions (e.g., motor car depreciation) to the appellant and allowance of identical claims to the co-partner in the impugned year, and found no basis to deny the deduction in the assessment under challenge. The assessment order is set aside to the extent it disallowed business-related expenditures claimed against salary/remuneration received from the partnership.
ITAT allowed the appellant's appeal, holding that remuneration paid by a partnership to a partner falls within section 28(v) as business income, and therefore expenditures incurred wholly and exclusively for earning that remuneration are deductible under sections 32 and 37. The Tribunal applied the rule of consistency, noting prior allowance of similar deductions (e.g., motor car depreciation) to the appellant and allowance of identical claims to the co-partner in the impugned year, and found no basis to deny the deduction in the assessment under challenge. The assessment order is set aside to the extent it disallowed business-related expenditures claimed against salary/remuneration received from the partnership.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.