Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96536 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.