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...
Though the questions are multiple, issue is single, namely, the deduction of Rs.61,08,500/- claimed by the assessee towards expenditure being part of development charges. The assessee had paid such sum to Surat Municipal Corporation towards water connection charges.
The stand of the revenue that expenditure incurred by the society on giving presents to as own members would amount to expenditure on itself or application of its income to its members also could not be countenanced as the society was entirely a separate entity
In this case Payment was made for reimbursement of the permission granted to the assessee for using trade mark ‘Wool, New Zealand’. Such payment cannot be said to be fee for technical services. Even otherwise also, in the light of the detailed discussions made in paragraph nos. 13, 14 and 15 of this order, such reimbursement of expenses are not subject to TDS. Accordingly, no disallowance is warranted. The addition of Rs. 2,88,135/- is deleted.
If the assessee satisfies the assessing authority that the expenditure is not in violation of the regulations framed by the medical council then it may legitimately claim a deduction, but it is for the assessee to satisfy the assessing officer that the expense is not in violation of the Medical Council Regulations referred to above.
DCIT Vs. M/s CMR Design Automation Pvt Ltd (ITAT Delhi)- Assessee was paying Shri Mahesh Chandra as share holder a sum of Rs. 25 lacs per annum as salary. This compared very favourably with the salary being disbursed in the industry in which the assessee was placed. Moreover, all disbursements to Sh. Mahesh Chandra was cleared by Board Resolutions. The profit of the assessee company has also arisen phenomenally during the year. In other words, commission and bonus paid to Sh. Mahesh Chandra was an incentive, which was directly related to the profitability of the company.
Saif Ali Khan Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) -With regard to the deduction of Society charges, we find that it has also been disallowed by the AO on the ground that since a flat amount of 30% of annual value is allowed, no other deduction is allowable. However, we find that sec. 24(a) reads as under B
These cross appeals are directed against separate orders of the CIT(A) relating to the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000, respectively. The appeals arise out of the assessments made under section 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961. As they involve some common issues, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.
ITC Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata)– We have carefully considered the submissions of the ld. representatives of the parties and the orders of the authorities below. We have also gone through the details of the expenditure aggregating Rs. 9,00,111 claimed by the assessee, the break-up of which has already been mentioned herein above. We observe […]
Hyderabad Distilleries And Wineries Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)- Whether selling and publicity expenses can be disallowed merely on the basis of statement of an auditor – Whether when the similar expenses were allowed by the AO to similar parties, no dis-allowance can be made only on the basis of assumptions and presumptions – Whether the dis-allowance made without giving the assessee an opportunity to cross examine the parties on the basis of whose statement the dis-allowance was made, is against the natural justice.
In so far as claiming the amount set out towards warranty is concerned, the apex court in the case of Rotark Controls India P. Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 has held that the principle is that the historical trend indicates that a large number of sophisticated goods were being manufactured in the past and the facts show that defects existed in some of the items manufactured and sold, then provision made for warranty in respect of such sophisticated goods would be entitled to deduction from the gross receipts under section 37.
