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...
Interest paid under s.201(1A) for delayed TDS remittance was held not compensatory and hence not deductible as business expenditure under s.37(1), following binding precedent; the disallowance was sustained. Payments to a foreign expert were held to exhibit employer-employee attributes; GST treatment was irrelevant, and the amounts were treated as salary requiring TDS under s.192, so disallowance under s.40(a)(i) for non-deduction was upheld. Disallowance of head-office staff reimbursements under s.44DA lacked a clear adjudication and was remitted to the AO for fresh decision with opportunity of hearing. Bank/performance guarantee charges were not "commission or brokerage" absent a principal-agent relationship, so disallowance under s.40(a) was deleted. Challenge to mere initiation of penalty under s.270A was held non-maintainable. - ITAT
Interest paid under s.201(1A) for delayed TDS remittance was held not compensatory and hence not deductible as business expenditure under s.37(1), following binding precedent; the disallowance was sustained. Payments to a foreign expert were held to exhibit employer-employee attributes; GST treatment was irrelevant, and the amounts were treated as salary requiring TDS under s.192, so disallowance under s.40(a)(i) for non-deduction was upheld. Disallowance of head-office staff reimbursements under s.44DA lacked a clear adjudication and was remitted to the AO for fresh decision with opportunity of hearing. Bank/performance guarantee charges were not "commission or brokerage" absent a principal-agent relationship, so disallowance under s.40(a) was deleted. Challenge to mere initiation of penalty under s.270A was held non-maintainable. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.