https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420915 Payment for pre-existing designs to a non-resident required closer factual examination before disallowance under section 40(a)(i), because the record did not clearly establish that the payment was for technical or included services; the matter was therefore remitted for fresh adjudication. Employees' provident fund contribution deposited beyond the statutory due date remained disallowable under the binding time-limit rule in section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x), so the disallowance was sustained. Scholarship expenditure claimed for a related person was not shown to have a real business nexus or commercial expediency under section 37, and that disallowance was also upheld. en-us Wed, 30 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Apr 2022 08:39:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420915 Payment for pre-existing designs to a non-resident required closer factual examination before disallowance under section 40(a)(i), because the record did not clearly establish that the payment was for technical or included services; the matter was therefore remitted for fresh adjudication. Employees' provident fund contribution deposited beyond the statutory due date remained disallowable under the binding time-limit rule in section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x), so the disallowance was sustained. Scholarship expenditure claimed for a related person was not shown to have a real business nexus or commercial expediency under section 37, and that disallowance was also upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 30 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420915