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...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore the critical implications of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 on taxpayers' Input Tax Credit (ITC) eligibility and the ...
Income Tax : Explore statutory interpretation of Section 37 under Income Tax Act, the meaning of expenditure, and the difference between busine...
Income Tax : Explore the landmark ITAT Chennai 2016 ruling on CWIP expense write-off in Faurecia Emissions vs. DCIT, highlighting evolving lega...
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 : ITAT Hyderabad held that CIT(A) without examining the historical/ empirical data of expenditure incurred by the assessee for recti...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance of interest under section 14A unjustified as assessee’s own funds are far in excess of the...
Income Tax : The payments, totaling INR 15,59,64,867 for technical assistance and INR 1,99,57,161 as royalty on sales to associated enterprises...
Income Tax : Detailed analysis of Ramanlal Jivrajbhai Patel vs ITO case from ITAT Ahmedabad. Learn about judgments on business expenditure unde...
Income Tax : Explore the case of Pipelic Energy Software India Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT at Telangana High Court. Detailed analysis on why subsidiary exp...
It is a settled principle of law that commission paid to persons for referring names of customers is allowable u/s. 37 of the Act for introducing potential customers to the assessee falls within the ambit of service.
Legal expenses incurred to protect the Directors of the company in respect of the complaints filed against them in their individual capacity will not allowed under section 37 as business expenses.
Whether the AO is correct in disallowing expenses incurred on developing and maintaining land in connection with real estate activity?
Pharmaceutical companies have received some relief in the recent favorable decisions such as Aishika Pharma (P.) Ltd. which have allowed tax deduction of expenses in the nature of sales promotion, marketing and distribution expenses which would otherwise be outright disallowed by tax authorities due to Circular No. 5/2012 dated 1-8-2012 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (‘CBDT’) which cites such expenses as inadmissible as per Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’).
The issue under consideration is whether the Lease payment in advance for the period varied from 15 to 99 years considered as Capital Expenditure or Revenue Expenditure?
Bad debts are allowable expenses and it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt has become irrecoverable Gone are the days when the the Assessing Officer would disallow the sum debited in the P&L account as non-recoverable sums written off as bad debts. The Assessing Officer cannot disallow the sum in […]
Issue Involved/Facts – Whether expenditure incurred for preparing prospectus, payment of underwriting commission and brokerage for issue of redeemable preference shares is deductible as Revenue Expenditure? Arguments in against – 1) Hindustan Gas & Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 1 Taxman 546 (Cal.): Facts of the case: The assessee-company incurred expenditure for payment of solicitor […]
This article is about one of the most important things which came out in terms that how to treat fees paid for enhancement of authorized capital to Registrar of Companies. Will it be a revenue expenditure or capital expenditure? Before starting it up and finding the answer let’s just start it with what is Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 all about.
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals) – 18, Kolkata dated 15.04.2016 and the solitary issue involved therein relates to the disallowance of Rs. 5,00,000/- made by the A.O. and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of penalty charges paid to Insurance Regularly and Development Authority (IRDA).
Where dis allowance was made by revenue under section 14A in respect of interest and administrative expenses, it was made clear that where assessee had its own surplus fund, then no question of any estimation of expenditure under rule 8D would arise. Thus, revenue was not justified in disallowing interest and administrative expenses, when the same was made out of interest free fund.
