Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Medical reimbursement paid by a company to its salaried full-time employee and promoter-director for critical heart surgery was held deductible as business expenditure under section 37(1). The Tribunal found the payment commercially expedient because the employee was the driving force behind the business, the surgery was genuine and undertaken at a recognised hospital, and the company bore only part of the total cost while the balance was personally met. It also held that the timing of the Board resolution, the marginal excess over the sanctioned amount, and the argument of personal expenditure did not justify disallowance. The reimbursement, authorised and debited as employee benefit expense, was therefore allowable and the disallowance was deleted.
Medical reimbursement paid by a company to its salaried full-time employee and promoter-director for critical heart surgery was held deductible as business expenditure under section 37(1). The Tribunal found the payment commercially expedient because the employee was the driving force behind the business, the surgery was genuine and undertaken at a recognised hospital, and the company bore only part of the total cost while the balance was personally met. It also held that the timing of the Board resolution, the marginal excess over the sanctioned amount, and the argument of personal expenditure did not justify disallowance. The reimbursement, authorised and debited as employee benefit expense, was therefore allowable and the disallowance was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.