Reopening assessments beyond four years requires nondisclosure of material facts; mere change of opinion or general allegations invalidates reassessme...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6001 to 6020 of 96207 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT held that settlement payment made under an invoked corporate guarantee was deductible as business expenditure because it arose from commercial expediency. It rejected the Revenue's challenge to the existence of the liability and to the claim that the amount was not incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes, noting that the arbitration and execution proceedings had already proceeded on the basis of that guarantee. Applying the principle that tax authorities cannot sit in the businessman's armchair to judge commercial expediency, the Tribunal treated the payment as a business outgo and deleted the disallowance.
The ITAT held that settlement payment made under an invoked corporate guarantee was deductible as business expenditure because it arose from commercial expediency. It rejected the Revenue's challenge to the existence of the liability and to the claim that the amount was not incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes, noting that the arbitration and execution proceedings had already proceeded on the basis of that guarantee. Applying the principle that tax authorities cannot sit in the businessman's armchair to judge commercial expediency, the Tribunal treated the payment as a business outgo and deleted the disallowance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
