<?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 upholds CIT(A) decisions on on-money addition restriction, transfer pricing deletions, and business expense allowances</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89932</link>
    <description>ITAT dismissed revenue&#039;s appeal on multiple grounds. Regarding &#039;on-money&#039; addition, ITAT upheld CIT(A)&#039;s restriction to 25% of AO&#039;s addition, finding AO lacked evidentiary basis for extrapolation from 99acres.com reference prices. On transfer pricing adjustments for debenture interest and expenses, ITAT affirmed CIT(A)&#039;s deletion, noting TPO failed to apply prescribed methods under section 92C(1) read with Rule 10AB for determining arm&#039;s length price. Court held CCD issuance was quasi-capital nature and cited Shell India Markets precedent that share issuance to non-resident associated enterprises doesn&#039;t attract transfer pricing provisions. For various business expenses disallowance, ITAT confirmed CIT(A)&#039;s allowance, finding expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes without capital or personal nature.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2025 08:44:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2025 08:44:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=832588" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>ITAT upholds CIT(A) decisions on on-money addition restriction, transfer pricing deletions, and business expense allowances</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89932</link>
      <description>ITAT dismissed revenue&#039;s appeal on multiple grounds. Regarding &#039;on-money&#039; addition, ITAT upheld CIT(A)&#039;s restriction to 25% of AO&#039;s addition, finding AO lacked evidentiary basis for extrapolation from 99acres.com reference prices. On transfer pricing adjustments for debenture interest and expenses, ITAT affirmed CIT(A)&#039;s deletion, noting TPO failed to apply prescribed methods under section 92C(1) read with Rule 10AB for determining arm&#039;s length price. Court held CCD issuance was quasi-capital nature and cited Shell India Markets precedent that share issuance to non-resident associated enterprises doesn&#039;t attract transfer pricing provisions. For various business expenses disallowance, ITAT confirmed CIT(A)&#039;s allowance, finding expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes without capital or personal nature.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2025 08:44:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89932</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>