https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411569 Professional fees paid to the spouse were examined against related-party disallowance, unexplained expenditure, and TDS default provisions. The text notes that the payment was supported by a memorandum of understanding and by the spouse's designated functions as Medical Director and CEO, so disallowance under section 40A(2) required evidence of excessiveness, which was absent; the addition under section 69C also failed once the receipt was shown as professional fee and disclosed in the recipient's return. The resident payee having offered the income to tax, the section 40(a)(ia) objection was treated as curative and retrospective, and the disallowance was deleted. On capital gains from joint property, the issue of the correct year of chargeability and possible double taxation required fresh verification, so the matter was remitted. en-us Mon, 09 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Sep 2021 19:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411569 Professional fees paid to the spouse were examined against related-party disallowance, unexplained expenditure, and TDS default provisions. The text notes that the payment was supported by a memorandum of understanding and by the spouse's designated functions as Medical Director and CEO, so disallowance under section 40A(2) required evidence of excessiveness, which was absent; the addition under section 69C also failed once the receipt was shown as professional fee and disclosed in the recipient's return. The resident payee having offered the income to tax, the section 40(a)(ia) objection was treated as curative and retrospective, and the disallowance was deleted. On capital gains from joint property, the issue of the correct year of chargeability and possible double taxation required fresh verification, so the matter was remitted. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 09 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411569