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...
M/s. Bokaro Power Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) In the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Vs. CIT Ltd. (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, ‘where the amount paid is partly penal and partly compensatory, the amount to the extent that it is compensatory could be allowed as deduction’. Further, Hon’ble Jurisdictional […]
These are appeals filed by the assessee-firm directed against the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Gulbarga, dated 29-1-2016 for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. Since common issue is involved in both the appeals, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order.
It has been held that ‘even though the expenditure is not admissible for the computation of the total income either as a bad debt or as an expenditure wholly incurred for the purpose of business, still, it can be allowed as an expenditure as a trading loss if it arises directly from carrying on the business and is incidental to the business.
It is clear from the statutory provisions of the MV Act as well as the law laid down in judicial pronouncements that payments made for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law and which are not compensatory in nature cannot be allowed as a deduction u/s.37(1) read with Explanation thereto.
In CBDT circular no.16 of 6th October 2015, the Board has clearly stated that cost incurred in abandoned projects should be allowed as revenue expenditure under section 37 of the Act.
Advertisement expenditure incurred after certification by Board of Film Censors cannot be included as part of cost of production, hence, provisions of rule 9A, will not apply. It was held, the expenditure incurred in regular course of business has to be allowed under section 37.
DCIT Vs Adsun Offshore Diving Contractors Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Given facts of the present case that whatever test may be applied in deciding whether any expenditure is allowable as a deduction under section 37, the essential requirement must in every case be as to whether the expenditure was either in reality or as a […]
In this case, the expenditure clearly is not towards acquisition of the capital nor is it an integral part of it, it is only the service alone. It is of a similar kind that would otherwise have been permitted under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.
The compensation was paid because the assessee had failed to install the pollution control device within the time prescribed. Therefore, payment of the sum of Rs.12,50,000/- is not hit by Explanation-1 to Section 37 of the Act. The Hon’ble judges of the Kolkata High Court by setting aside the orders of ITAT held that payment was und
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of ACIT vs. People Interactive India Private Ltd. that the issue in hand is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Special Bench-Bangalore Tribunal in (2013) 35 taxmann.com 335(SB) Biocon Limited v. DCIT (LTU) in favour of the assessee company whereby the Hon’ble Special Bench has held that the discount under ESOP is in the nature of employees cost
