Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
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 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
