Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
241 to 260 of 95715 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 the appeal of the assessee-company (A Co.), engaged in manufacturing and trading of agro-based products, and deleted the disallowance made u/s 40A(3) of the Act. The AO had invoked s.40A(3) on cash payments by A Co. purportedly as expenditure, and CIT(A) had upheld the addition due to absence of evidence that such expenses were incurred on behalf of another entity (B Ltd.) and reimbursed. ITAT held that the AO's addition was based solely on the ledger account in B Ltd.'s books and that no contrary material disproved A Co.'s claim that the cash payments were made on behalf of B Ltd. Further, A Co. had not claimed these payments as its own expenditure. Consequently, ITAT ruled that any expenditure, if at all, pertained to B Ltd., not A Co., and no disallowance u/s 40A(3) was sustainable in A Co.'s hands.
ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee-company (A Co.), engaged in manufacturing and trading of agro-based products, and deleted the disallowance made u/s 40A(3) of the Act. The AO had invoked s.40A(3) on cash payments by A Co. purportedly as expenditure, and CIT(A) had upheld the addition due to absence of evidence that such expenses were incurred on behalf of another entity (B Ltd.) and reimbursed. ITAT held that the AO's addition was based solely on the ledger account in B Ltd.'s books and that no contrary material disproved A Co.'s claim that the cash payments were made on behalf of B Ltd. Further, A Co. had not claimed these payments as its own expenditure. Consequently, ITAT ruled that any expenditure, if at all, pertained to B Ltd., not A Co., and no disallowance u/s 40A(3) was sustainable in A Co.'s hands.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
