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...
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.