Income Tax : Bangalore ITAT held that the Revenue cannot deny the fifth-year deduction under Section 35D after consistently allowing the claim ...
Income Tax : Learn how small businesses in India can optimize tax benefits through strategic structuring, presumptive taxation, deductions, MSM...
Income Tax : Explore why amortizing preliminary expenses over 5 years is unjust for businesses. Urgent appeal to lawmakers for immediate tax re...
Income Tax : Income Tax Section 35D amended to remove condition of activity in connection with preliminary expenses of a concern approved by CB...
Income Tax : Section 35AD provides for investment -linked tax incentive for Specified Business. One such specified business of laying and opera...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that a REIT, being a trust and not a company, is not eligible for deduction under Section 35D(2)(c) on IPO and...
Income Tax : Bangalore ITAT held that mine development expenditure incurred by a mining contractor was allowable as a revenue deduction under S...
Income Tax : The ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee's convertible debentures lacked the liability component required for classification as Comp...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that once a Section 35D claim was accepted in earlier years, it could not be disallowed in the final amortizatio...
Income Tax : The Bangalore ITAT held that a disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot survive without the Assessing Officer recor...
Income Tax : Find out the latest Income Tax amendment in 2023, introducing new rules for preliminary expenses under section 35D. The Ministry o...
ITAT Bangalore held that a REIT, being a trust and not a company, is not eligible for deduction under Section 35D(2)(c) on IPO and listing expenses.
Bangalore ITAT held that mine development expenditure incurred by a mining contractor was allowable as a revenue deduction under Section 37 and not governed by Section 35E. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the assessee’s own case and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
The ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee’s convertible debentures lacked the liability component required for classification as Compound Financial Instruments. Consequently, they could not be treated as transition amount under Section 115JB(2C).
Bangalore ITAT held that the Revenue cannot deny the fifth-year deduction under Section 35D after consistently allowing the claim in previous years. The ruling reinforces the principle of consistency in tax assessments.
The Tribunal held that once a Section 35D claim was accepted in earlier years, it could not be disallowed in the final amortization year without disturbing the original allowance. The disallowance of preliminary expenses was therefore delete
The Bangalore ITAT held that a disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot survive without the Assessing Officer recording satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee’s claim. The Tribunal deleted the disallowance after finding non-compliance with Section 14A(2).
The Chennai ITAT held that transfer pricing benchmarking cannot ignore extraordinary business circumstances arising from the shutdown of a major customer. The Tribunal upheld deletion of TP adjustment after accepting that sale of goods to the AE was a distress sale triggered by Nokia India’s closure.
Interest earned on funds kept in bank during business setup, when those funds were directly linked to the project, was a capital receipt and not taxable as “income from other sources
ITAT Kolkata held that professional fees for works related to acquisition of new unit or expansion of existing undertaking is governed by provisions of section 35D of the Income Tax Act. Thus, since there is a specific provision u/s. 35D for amortization of certain preliminary expenses, the recourse could not have been had to the residuary provision of section 37(1) of the Act.
Dazzler Confectionery Company Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Deleted Due to Defective Notice – No Specific Charge Mentioned AO levied penalty of ₹44.79 lakh u/s 271(1)(c) on disallowances relating to pre-operative expenses & 35D deduction. Penalty notice u/s 274 was issued using “concealment OR furnishing inaccurate particulars” without specifying the exact charge. Assessee […]
