<?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>Business expense deductibility for independent contractor services upheld, allowing marketing and MIS contract costs when bona fide and reasonable.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96933</link>
    <description>Payment for independent contractor services for MIS reporting, stock verification and marketing were found to be business-necessary and allowable where rendered by unrelated and independent entities and supported by reports and inventory certificates; therefore the examiner&#039;s blanket disallowance based on perceived unreasonableness was rejected and books of account were not struck. Comparative per-location cost differences alone did not justify disallowance absent evidence of fictitiousness or lack of service, and the assessee&#039;s long experience and engagement terms were held relevant. The appellant&#039;s grounds to allow these contract expenses were accepted and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2026 10:16:42 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2026 10:16:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=886566" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Business expense deductibility for independent contractor services upheld, allowing marketing and MIS contract costs when bona fide and reasonable.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96933</link>
      <description>Payment for independent contractor services for MIS reporting, stock verification and marketing were found to be business-necessary and allowable where rendered by unrelated and independent entities and supported by reports and inventory certificates; therefore the examiner&#039;s blanket disallowance based on perceived unreasonableness was rejected and books of account were not struck. Comparative per-location cost differences alone did not justify disallowance absent evidence of fictitiousness or lack of service, and the assessee&#039;s long experience and engagement terms were held relevant. The appellant&#039;s grounds to allow these contract expenses were accepted and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2026 10:16:42 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96933</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>