This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Mere existence of related-party transaction does not trigger s.40A(2)(b)
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- ACIT Vs. Pankaj Kalra (ITAT Delhi)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Related Assessment Year
- 2017-18
- Courts
- All ITAT, ITAT Delhi
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
Advertisement
ACIT Vs. Pankaj Kalra (ITAT Delhi)
Related Party ≠ Excess Payment: ITAT Rejects 40A(2)(b) Disallowance
Delhi ITAT dismissed Revenue’s appeal and upheld deletion of disallowances and additions for AY 2017-18 in ACIT vs. Pankaj Kalra, ITA No. 855/Del/2025. Tribunal held that mere existence of related-party transaction does not trigger s.40A(2)(b) unless AO demonstrates excessiveness or unreasonableness by comparables. Assessee had purchased mobile phone stock from group concern Salvation Group at the same rate at which Micromax supplied goods to distributor, resulting ...
Author Info
