https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290818 Trade offers to distributors were treated as sales promotion under a principal-to-principal arrangement, not commission, so disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was deleted because section 194H and section 194J were not attracted. Trade price protection paid to distributors was allowed as business expenditure, being incurred wholly and exclusively to meet market price changes and competitive pressure. Free-of-cost handsets supplied to employees, dealers and service centres were held to be revenue expenditure for business purposes; once so treated, the alternate depreciation claim did not survive. The overall additions and disallowances were largely deleted. en-us Mon, 17 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Oct 2020 12:02:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290818 Trade offers to distributors were treated as sales promotion under a principal-to-principal arrangement, not commission, so disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was deleted because section 194H and section 194J were not attracted. Trade price protection paid to distributors was allowed as business expenditure, being incurred wholly and exclusively to meet market price changes and competitive pressure. Free-of-cost handsets supplied to employees, dealers and service centres were held to be revenue expenditure for business purposes; once so treated, the alternate depreciation claim did not survive. The overall additions and disallowances were largely deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 17 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290818