https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329774 Ad hoc transfer pricing and expense disallowances were rejected where the assessee supported the consultancy charge under the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method and the adjustment was made without a reasoned rejection of that method or selection of another prescribed method. Business promotion, travelling and conveyance, and telephone expenses were also disallowed on estimate, but the note states that such claims were supported by details and cheque payments and that no material showed the expenditure was bogus, excessive, or non-business in nature. The mobilisation advance was treated as a contractual receipt recognised on a scientific, contract-based basis, and no material was brought to show that the whole amount had accrued as income in the year. The appellate order deleting the additions was sustained. en-us Wed, 25 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Jul 2016 11:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329774 Ad hoc transfer pricing and expense disallowances were rejected where the assessee supported the consultancy charge under the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method and the adjustment was made without a reasoned rejection of that method or selection of another prescribed method. Business promotion, travelling and conveyance, and telephone expenses were also disallowed on estimate, but the note states that such claims were supported by details and cheque payments and that no material showed the expenditure was bogus, excessive, or non-business in nature. The mobilisation advance was treated as a contractual receipt recognised on a scientific, contract-based basis, and no material was brought to show that the whole amount had accrued as income in the year. The appellate order deleting the additions was sustained. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 25 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329774