Appellant's ring-back tone service held OIDAR, taxable domestically for 01.07.2012-31.07.2016; liability confirmed, penalties vacated, remanded for re...
ITAT allowed the appeal, directing that cash payments to unnamed sub-contractors be allowed as business expenditure. The tribunal found the assessee, engaged in tentage contracts, had substantiated payments by producing PANs, ITRs of the sub-contractors, TDS deduction and certificates, and assessment records of those recipients. Given the unregulated nature of the trade, the assessee's declared gross receipts and the relatively small quantum of payments (circa 4% of gross receipts), the tribunal held the expenditures were wholly and exclusively for business and could not be denied solely for being settled in cash; any AO misgivings should have prompted further inquiry rather than blanket disallowance.
ITAT allowed the appeal, directing that cash payments to unnamed sub-contractors be allowed as business expenditure. The tribunal found the assessee, engaged in tentage contracts, had substantiated payments by producing PANs, ITRs of the sub-contractors, TDS deduction and certificates, and assessment records of those recipients. Given the unregulated nature of the trade, the assessee's declared gross receipts and the relatively small quantum of payments (circa 4% of gross receipts), the tribunal held the expenditures were wholly and exclusively for business and could not be denied solely for being settled in cash; any AO misgivings should have prompted further inquiry rather than blanket disallowance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.