Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
ITAT held that deduction under section 54 could not be denied on technical or documentary objections where the record showed substantial investment in construction of a residential house and utilisation of capital gains for that purpose. It accepted the Joint Development Agreement and expenditure evidence as sufficient, noting no specific defect or adverse finding on genuineness, and applied a liberal construction to this beneficial exemption provision. The disallowance was deleted. On Chapter VI-A claims under sections 80C and 80D, the Tribunal upheld the direction to verify the supporting documents and allow the admissible deduction in accordance with law.
ITAT held that deduction under section 54 could not be denied on technical or documentary objections where the record showed substantial investment in construction of a residential house and utilisation of capital gains for that purpose. It accepted the Joint Development Agreement and expenditure evidence as sufficient, noting no specific defect or adverse finding on genuineness, and applied a liberal construction to this beneficial exemption provision. The disallowance was deleted. On Chapter VI-A claims under sections 80C and 80D, the Tribunal upheld the direction to verify the supporting documents and allow the admissible deduction in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.