Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
Contingency expenses reflected in CTC reports could not be...
Contingency expenses, exempt-income disallowance, and royalty benchmarking: unsupported adjustments were deleted under consistent accounting and transfer-pricing principles.
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
Contingency expenses reflected in CTC reports could not be disallowed where they matched the regular books, the books were not rejected, and no evidence showed inflation or fictitious claims; deletion was sustained under the rule of consistency. No disallowance of expenditure relating to exempt income was sustainable because no income exempt under Chapter III was earned; deletion under section 14A read with Rule 8D was sustained. The royalty transfer-pricing adjustment was unsustainable because no prescribed method or proper benchmarking had been applied and relevant joint-venture and support-service documents were not properly considered; deletion was sustained. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, while the cross-objection was infructuous.
Contingency expenses reflected in CTC reports could not be disallowed where they matched the regular books, the books were not rejected, and no evidence showed inflation or fictitious claims; deletion was sustained under the rule of consistency. No disallowance of expenditure relating to exempt income was sustainable because no income exempt under Chapter III was earned; deletion under section 14A read with Rule 8D was sustained. The royalty transfer-pricing adjustment was unsustainable because no prescribed method or proper benchmarking had been applied and relevant joint-venture and support-service documents were not properly considered; deletion was sustained. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, while the cross-objection was infructuous.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.