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-...
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.
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.
