This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Inactivity for a limited period does not mean that business ceased to exist. Accordingly, expenditure is allowable even though no business income is earned during such period
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- Bechtel International Inc. Vs. ADIT (ITAT Mumbai)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Related Assessment Year
- 2003-04
- Courts
- All ITAT, ITAT Mumbai
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
Recently ITAT Mumbai in the case of Bechtel International Inc., USA Vs. ADIT held that mere inactivity for a limited period does not mean that the taxpayer’s business ceased to exist or that it did not carry on any business at all. Expenditure incurred during the said period of inactivity / lull is allowable even though the taxpayer has not earned any business income.
Further, the Tribunal held that no interest can be charged under Section 234B and Section 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in case of a non-resident taxpayer in view of the legal position that all payments chargeable ...
