Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
441 to 460 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Disallowance of salary recharges and expense reimbursements was challenged where revenue relied on absence of detailed employee-wise service records and plain-paper cost-sharing agreements; AO made no finding that payments were excessive or provided no comparison with fair market value or benefit derived. The article explains that section 40A(2) requires formation of an opinion that expenditure is excessive or unreasonable before disallowance, and that under section 37(1) the assessee bears onus to prove business purpose. Absent a finding of excessiveness, mere lack of minute service details does not justify denying the claimed expenditure; the disallowance was held unsustainable and the appeal allowed.
Disallowance of salary recharges and expense reimbursements was challenged where revenue relied on absence of detailed employee-wise service records and plain-paper cost-sharing agreements; AO made no finding that payments were excessive or provided no comparison with fair market value or benefit derived. The article explains that section 40A(2) requires formation of an opinion that expenditure is excessive or unreasonable before disallowance, and that under section 37(1) the assessee bears onus to prove business purpose. Absent a finding of excessiveness, mere lack of minute service details does not justify denying the claimed expenditure; the disallowance was held unsustainable and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.