Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
ITAT held that commission paid for procuring bonds in a one-time...
Business expenditure disallowance failed where commission, related-party salary and promotion payments were supported by records and inquiry was inadequate.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
ITAT held that commission paid for procuring bonds in a one-time trading transaction was allowable as business expenditure where payments were made through banking channels with TDS, confirmations, PAN and bank details, and the underlying bond deal was not disputed; suspicion based on non-response of some parties or missing unspecified KYC material was insufficient, so the ad hoc disallowance was deleted. It also deleted disallowance of salary paid to a related party because no specific inquiry was made into the employee's qualifications, experience or work profile, and there was no finding of excessiveness. Business promotion expenditure paid to two HUFs was similarly allowed because invoices, bank payment and identity documents were on record, while the claim relating to Planwell Industries Corporation was not pressed.
ITAT held that commission paid for procuring bonds in a one-time trading transaction was allowable as business expenditure where payments were made through banking channels with TDS, confirmations, PAN and bank details, and the underlying bond deal was not disputed; suspicion based on non-response of some parties or missing unspecified KYC material was insufficient, so the ad hoc disallowance was deleted. It also deleted disallowance of salary paid to a related party because no specific inquiry was made into the employee's qualifications, experience or work profile, and there was no finding of excessiveness. Business promotion expenditure paid to two HUFs was similarly allowed because invoices, bank payment and identity documents were on record, while the claim relating to Planwell Industries Corporation was not pressed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.