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 assessee's appeal and set aside the reassessment and consequent disallowance. It held that reopening of assessment was invalid as the original assessment under section 143(3) had been completed after scrutiny and no fresh tangible material indicating suppression or omission by the assessee was found to justify "reasons to believe" escapement of income. On merits, ITAT held that late delivery (L.D.) charges were contractual payments for delayed supply of goods, not a penalty for infringement of law, and thus constituted allowable business expenditure under section 37. The disallowance of L.D. charges was therefore unsustainable.
ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal and set aside the reassessment and consequent disallowance. It held that reopening of assessment was invalid as the original assessment under section 143(3) had been completed after scrutiny and no fresh tangible material indicating suppression or omission by the assessee was found to justify "reasons to believe" escapement of income. On merits, ITAT held that late delivery (L.D.) charges were contractual payments for delayed supply of goods, not a penalty for infringement of law, and thus constituted allowable business expenditure under section 37. The disallowance of L.D. charges was therefore unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.