https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353593 Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was treated as unwarranted where tax had in substance been deducted, part payment had been made within time, and the books were verified to reflect the deduction; the later amendment was not applied to the year in question, so the technical service fee issue was resolved in favour of the assessee. On transfer pricing, the addition for professional fees and pre-FID expenses was rejected because the TPO had impermissibly mixed separate contracts and attempted to override the assessee's accounting method, while the mark-up and corresponding income had already been accepted. Both additions were deleted. en-us Wed, 03 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Jan 2018 10:12:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353593 Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was treated as unwarranted where tax had in substance been deducted, part payment had been made within time, and the books were verified to reflect the deduction; the later amendment was not applied to the year in question, so the technical service fee issue was resolved in favour of the assessee. On transfer pricing, the addition for professional fees and pre-FID expenses was rejected because the TPO had impermissibly mixed separate contracts and attempted to override the assessee's accounting method, while the mark-up and corresponding income had already been accepted. Both additions were deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 03 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353593