<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee on disallowance of business promotion expenses and cessation of liability.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78291</link>
    <description>The ITAT ruled on two issues: 1. Disallowance of Business Promotion Expenses: AO disallowed expenses for a get-together, citing lack of proof of business purpose. CIT(A) upheld, but ITAT found the expenses legitimate due to revenue from operations, accepted expenses, and TDS payment to caterer. AO&#039;s disallowance was deemed incorrect. 2. Cessation of Liability u/s 41(1): AO added outstanding professional fees as income u/s 41(1) for being unpaid over 3 years. ITAT disagreed, noting the liability in financial statements indicates intent to settle. Addition was deemed incorrect, and AO was directed to delete it. Assessee&#039;s appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 08 Jun 2024 09:05:03 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Jun 2024 09:05:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=755764" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee on disallowance of business promotion expenses and cessation of liability.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78291</link>
      <description>The ITAT ruled on two issues: 1. Disallowance of Business Promotion Expenses: AO disallowed expenses for a get-together, citing lack of proof of business purpose. CIT(A) upheld, but ITAT found the expenses legitimate due to revenue from operations, accepted expenses, and TDS payment to caterer. AO&#039;s disallowance was deemed incorrect. 2. Cessation of Liability u/s 41(1): AO added outstanding professional fees as income u/s 41(1) for being unpaid over 3 years. ITAT disagreed, noting the liability in financial statements indicates intent to settle. Addition was deemed incorrect, and AO was directed to delete it. Assessee&#039;s appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 08 Jun 2024 09:05:03 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78291</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>