Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6541 to 6560 of 96262 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.