Corporate Law : Supreme Court clarifies power to modify arbitral awards under Section 34 in Gayatri Balaswamy case, raising questions on finality,...
Income Tax : Learn about disallowed expenses under PGBP in India's Income Tax Act. Understand key sections like 37, 40, and 40A, and their impa...
Income Tax : Delhi HC rules reimbursements to NRAEs not subject to TDS as "fees for technical services," clarifying scope of Section 9(1)(vii) ...
Income Tax : Understand the impact of Section 43B(h) on businesses: Learn about deductions for MSME payments and the importance of timely payme...
Corporate Law : Discover the process and types of trademark assignment. Learn about procedures, required documents, and benefits for a smooth tran...
Corporate Law : Explore the proposed amendments to Regulations 35, 37, and 50 of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations 2009. L...
Income Tax : Allowability of Interest paid under Incometax Act, 1961: Presently, interest paid by the Government to an assessee is chargeable t...
Income Tax : The Mumbai ITAT held that reversal of securitisation provisions already disallowed in earlier years cannot be taxed again upon wri...
Income Tax : The Chennai ITAT held that deductions approved by DSIR under Section 35(2AB) cannot be disallowed merely on the basis of survey st...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court held that grants disbursed by a statutory corporation formed part of its core business functions and qualified a...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that mere observations about cash transactions are insufficient to levy penalty under Section 271D. A specific ...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi ruled that reimbursement of software costs to foreign AEs on a cost-to-cost basis could not be treated as a profit-...
ITAT Delhi quashed a reassessment, ruling that jurisdictional AO lacked authority to issue a Section 148 notice after CBDT notification assigned exclusive power to NFAC under Section 151A. The key takeaway is that post-March 29, 2022, only NFAC can validly initiate reassessment proceedings under faceless regime.
The Delhi ITAT deleted a disallowance of Rs.1.22 crore, ruling that charges paid to the Stock Exchange for margin shortfall are regulatory fees, not penalties for offenses prohibited by law. Following Delhi High Court precedent, the Tribunal held these payments are allowable commercial business expenditure under Section 37(1)
ITAT Delhi held that sales made to Jyoti Products were genuine, supported by ledgers and invoices. The 25% disallowance by the AO under Section 37 was deleted, as Section 37 applies only to business expenditure, not sales transactions.
The ITAT dismissed an assessee’s quantum appeal, confirming that a ₹10.42 Cr write-off for decommissioned windmills was a capital loss, not a revenue deduction. Since the trust offered this as business income, the ITAT held the only permissible treatment was adjustment in the block of assets.
The Mumbai ITAT restricted the disallowance for purchases from hawala parties to 25% of the bogus purchase amount, affirming the material was genuinely received and sold, despite fictitious invoices. The ruling relies on the Gujarat High Court’s precedent in Vijay Proteins.
The Supreme Court restored the ITAT’s order, ruling that a temporary lull in business due to the absence of a contract does not constitute cessation if the intention and efforts to continue (like correspondence and bidding) exist. The decision allows the non-resident company to claim business expenditure under Section 37(1) and set-off unabsorbed depreciation under Section 32(2).
The Tribunal held that a ₹15.22 crore one-time payment to distributors, necessitated by a business model shift, was a valid revenue expenditure under Section 37, driven by commercial necessity. The ruling affirms that business prudence justifies compensation to maintain continuity without creating a capital asset.
ITAT Mumbai held that discount on issue of Employee Stock Option Plan [ESOP] is allowable as deduction in computing income under the head profits and gains of the business. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed and order of CIT(A) upheld.
ITAT Chennai held that revisional powers under Section 263 cannot be used to substitute the Assessing Officer’s view when proper enquiry was conducted. The AO’s acceptance of business loss and PF/ESI deductions was valid.
ITAT Delhi ruled AO cannot use Section 154 to disallow ESI/PF deduction based on the later Supreme Court Checkmate judgment, as the issue was previously debatable.
