https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773600 ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the assessee's appeal regarding section 40(A)(2)(b) disallowance for consultancy and development charges. The tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to discharge the initial burden of proving payments were excessive or unreasonable by not providing comparable instances or conducting fair market price assessment. Following IKEA Trading precedent, the tribunal ruled that without establishing excessiveness through comparable cases, no disallowance was warranted under section 40(A)(2)(b). en-us Mon, 23 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Jun 2025 09:23:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773600 ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the assessee's appeal regarding section 40(A)(2)(b) disallowance for consultancy and development charges. The tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to discharge the initial burden of proving payments were excessive or unreasonable by not providing comparable instances or conducting fair market price assessment. Following IKEA Trading precedent, the tribunal ruled that without establishing excessiveness through comparable cases, no disallowance was warranted under section 40(A)(2)(b). Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 23 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773600