- Sunday, February 20, 2011, 9:53
- Income Tax Case Laws
Recently, the Delhi High Court (High Court) in the case of CIT v. Whirlpool of India Ltd. (ITA No. 1154 of 2009) (Judgement date: 24 January 2011 Assessment Year 1996-97) held that additional provision for warranty made was not contingent liability
Full Article
- Tuesday, February 23, 2010, 2:58
- Finance
What is the Budget? Why is it so important? Why does it affect all of us? And, above all, how does one interpret the budgetary lingo flying around? Union Budget is the annual report of India as a country. It contains the government of India's revenue and expenditure for the end of a particular fiscal year, which runs from April 1 to March 31.
Full Article
- Sunday, January 10, 2010, 13:42
- Income Tax Case Laws
CASE LAW DETAILS Decided by: ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH `C’, MUMBAI, In The case of: ITO v. Pritam Juice, Appeal No.: ITA No. 6096/Mum/06 , Decided on: September 30, 2009 RELEVANT PARAGRAPH 10. We have heard the rival submission and perused the relevant material on record in the light of precedents relied upon. The factual position [...]
Full Article
- Thursday, December 31, 2009, 3:28
- Income Tax Case Laws
The Taxpayer incurred interest expenditure on the funds borrowed for investing in shares of a company, with a view to acquire controlling interest. The ITAT held that the interest expenditure incurred is not allowable under Section 57(iii)(Section) of the Indian Tax Law (ITL), since it is not incurred 'wholly and exclusively' for the purpose of earning dividend income.
Full Article
- Sunday, December 27, 2009, 13:55
- Income Tax Case Laws
This article summarizes a recent ruling of the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of M/s ONGC Videsh Ltd. (Taxpayer) [2009-TIOL-758-ITAT-DEL] on the issue of allowability of depreciation on participatory right to carry out the hydrocarbon operations, acquired by the Taxpayer, pursuant to a Production Sharing Arrangement (PSA). The ITAT held that the participatory right acquired by the Taxpayer was in the nature of asset, in the form of 'license' i.e. ..
Full Article
- Sunday, December 20, 2009, 6:35
- Income Tax Case Laws
It is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the Revenue that unless a particular asset is used for the purpose of business or provision, depreciation is not allowed. No doubt, as per Section 32(1) of the Act, in order to be entitled to claim depreciation, the asset is to be owned by the assessee and it is also to be used for the purpose of business or profession. However, the expression "used for the purpose of business" when applied to block a..
Full Article
- Wednesday, December 16, 2009, 3:24
- Income Tax
It is quite common for the Revenue to treat such expenditure as capital in nature and administer depreciation allowance, only. An assessee would always put forth his argument that such replacement cost is only to maintain the existing level of efficiency of his manufacturing facility and would not result in any increase in its production capacity, thereby claiming it to be revenue in nature. In this context, it is quite pertinent to examine the current judicial thinking ..
Full Article
- Thursday, December 10, 2009, 3:58
- Income Tax Case Laws
M/s. Sri Mangayarkarasi Mills (P) Ltd. (“assessee/SMMP Ltd.”), engaged in the manufacture and sale of cotton yarn, incurred expenditure on replacement of machinery. While on one hand, SMMP Ltd. capitalized the said expenditure in its books of account and in its return of income, on the other, the same was claimed as revenue expenditure on the basis that such expenditure was merely incurred on replacement of spare parts in the spinning mill system.
Full Article