Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
The Tribunal upheld disallowance of foreign commission expenditure under section 37(1) because the assessee failed to prove that the claim was wholly and exclusively for business: the agreement was not shown to be genuine, the foreign recipient denied services and receipt, and no primary evidence such as bills, vouchers, or contemporaneous correspondence was produced. However, it accepted limited relief against double taxation where the corresponding liability had later been written back and offered to tax in a subsequent year; to that extent, the earlier-year additions were reduced. The original expenditure claim remained non-genuine, but the same income could not be taxed twice in the assessee's hands.
The Tribunal upheld disallowance of foreign commission expenditure under section 37(1) because the assessee failed to prove that the claim was wholly and exclusively for business: the agreement was not shown to be genuine, the foreign recipient denied services and receipt, and no primary evidence such as bills, vouchers, or contemporaneous correspondence was produced. However, it accepted limited relief against double taxation where the corresponding liability had later been written back and offered to tax in a subsequent year; to that extent, the earlier-year additions were reduced. The original expenditure claim remained non-genuine, but the same income could not be taxed twice in the assessee's hands.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
