<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2014 (1) TMI 884 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242668</link>
    <description>The Revenue appealed against the deletion of additions related to commission paid and remuneration to directors for the assessment year 2007-08. The Assessing Officer disallowed the commission paid due to lack of documentation, but the CIT (A) overturned this decision based on evidence provided by the assessee. The ITAT remitted the commission issue back to the Assessing Officer for further review. Regarding the disallowance of remuneration to directors, the CIT (A) disagreed with the Assessing Officer&#039;s 30% disallowance and directed a re-examination based on the directors&#039; income tax returns. The ITAT allowed the Revenue&#039;s appeal for reassessment of both issues, emphasizing the importance of verifying tax compliance and justifying disallowances with concrete evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 Jan 2014 16:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=343098" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (1) TMI 884 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242668</link>
      <description>The Revenue appealed against the deletion of additions related to commission paid and remuneration to directors for the assessment year 2007-08. The Assessing Officer disallowed the commission paid due to lack of documentation, but the CIT (A) overturned this decision based on evidence provided by the assessee. The ITAT remitted the commission issue back to the Assessing Officer for further review. Regarding the disallowance of remuneration to directors, the CIT (A) disagreed with the Assessing Officer&#039;s 30% disallowance and directed a re-examination based on the directors&#039; income tax returns. The ITAT allowed the Revenue&#039;s appeal for reassessment of both issues, emphasizing the importance of verifying tax compliance and justifying disallowances with concrete evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242668</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>