Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Business loss was disallowed on the premise that it was not genuine; applying s.28, the forum held that real revenue losses incidental to trade are deductible unless expressly barred, and found the disallowance conjectural and contrary to settled law, directing allowance of the loss in full. ESOP cross-charge was treated as notional; relying on prior year orders and the principle that "expenditure" under s.37 includes such employee compensation cost, the deduction for ESOP expense was allowed. Reimbursement of ESOP cost to the parent was held not to be consideration for services and made cost-to-cost; hence no TDS obligation arose under s.195 and the revenue's challenge failed. Manpower expenses were supported by contracts, invoices, statutory records and banking/TDS trail; later non-traceability of a vendor was insufficient absent evidence of cash-back, so the addition was deleted. - ITAT
Business loss was disallowed on the premise that it was not genuine; applying s.28, the forum held that real revenue losses incidental to trade are deductible unless expressly barred, and found the disallowance conjectural and contrary to settled law, directing allowance of the loss in full. ESOP cross-charge was treated as notional; relying on prior year orders and the principle that "expenditure" under s.37 includes such employee compensation cost, the deduction for ESOP expense was allowed. Reimbursement of ESOP cost to the parent was held not to be consideration for services and made cost-to-cost; hence no TDS obligation arose under s.195 and the revenue's challenge failed. Manpower expenses were supported by contracts, invoices, statutory records and banking/TDS trail; later non-traceability of a vendor was insufficient absent evidence of cash-back, so the addition was deleted. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
