Mere existence of related-party transaction does not trigger s.40A(2)(b)

 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 in discounted purchas...