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...
Non-compete fee paid by an assessee was examined for classification as capital or revenue expenditure. The enduring benefit test was held non-determinative where the advantage is not in the capital field; since the payment only kept a potential competitor at bay, did not create a monopoly, did not result in acquisition of a new business, and did not add to the profit-making apparatus, it was held allowable as revenue expenditure under s. 37(1), and the contrary view was set aside. Interest on borrowed funds used to acquire shares in a subsidiary/associate to obtain controlling interest was held incurred for commercial expediency; interest deduction under s. 36(1)(iii) was allowed and the revenue's challenge dismissed. - SC
Non-compete fee paid by an assessee was examined for classification as capital or revenue expenditure. The enduring benefit test was held non-determinative where the advantage is not in the capital field; since the payment only kept a potential competitor at bay, did not create a monopoly, did not result in acquisition of a new business, and did not add to the profit-making apparatus, it was held allowable as revenue expenditure under s. 37(1), and the contrary view was set aside. Interest on borrowed funds used to acquire shares in a subsidiary/associate to obtain controlling interest was held incurred for commercial expediency; interest deduction under s. 36(1)(iii) was allowed and the revenue's challenge dismissed. - SC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.