As per mercantile system of accounting, provision for expenses is an ascertained liability and the same is eligible for deduction while computing total income.
Held that assessee had failed to satisfy the conditions precedent to claim as revenue expenditure, as the expenditure was incurred during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, the claim cannot be allowed as deduction
Held that impugned expenditure cannot be held to be capital and it is not in the nature of personal expenditure or for any violation of law. Disallowance of CSR expenditure unjustified.
Asst. CIT Vs Renaissance Services BV (ITAT Mumbai) Held that the receipts of the assessee from training services and computer reservation services including reimbursements shall not be chargeable to tax both under the Act as well as under the Treaty. Facts- The assessee is a company incorporated in the Netherlands and is tax resident of […]
Assessee, being co-operative society, is out of the provisions of section 80P(4) and eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i)
The expenditure incurred on Dombivali unit cannot be allocated to only EOU Toluja unit without any basis or sufficient material available on record.
The only issue remains for adjudication is whether the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of housing project undertaken and constructed by it despite the fact that nominal part is commercial area.
Held that buyer’s premises cannot, in law, be a place of removal under Section 4. Demand duty thereon is unsustainable in law
Held that based on materiality concept, the amount of provision made, can’t be termed as unascertained liability, as the % for which provision is being made had been derived based on technical study, past experience of the company and the industrial standards.
Recovery of demand more than statutory pre-deposit amount, on the basis of adjudication order, which was never served on the petitioner is declared as arbitrary and illegal
