Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
