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 : Interest income earned by a foreign bank from foreign currency loans extended to Indian corporates was taxable on a gross basis. S...
Income Tax : The Gujarat High Court held that a scientifically determined warranty provision qualified for consideration under settled legal pr...
Income Tax : ITAT held that increased employee remuneration cannot be disallowed merely because business revenue declined where the expenditure...
Income Tax : ITAT held Section 43CA did not apply as the flats were booked before the provision became effective, deleting the addition based o...
Income Tax : The ITAT Ahmedabad held that royalty payments should continue to be benchmarked under TNMM by following earlier decisions in the a...
Adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(iv) based on disallowance reported in Form 3CD was held to be within CPC’s jurisdiction. However, rectification under section 154 enhancing income without complying with section 154(3) was quashed.
The Bangalore ITAT held that a disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot survive without the Assessing Officer recording satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee’s claim. The Tribunal deleted the disallowance after finding non-compliance with Section 14A(2).
Periodic or annual fees paid to a sports governing body to sustain annual league participation rights qualify as operational revenue expenses, not capital investments. Hospitality, travel, and boarding expenses incurred on celebrities and VIPs were fully deductible if they were used strategically to amplify brand visibility, ticket distribution, and corporate sponsorships.
The Bangalore ITAT deleted disallowance on transport expenses incurred across India through drivers and local agents. The ruling emphasized that practical realities of the transport industry cannot be ignored while assessing business expenditure.
The Tribunal observed that once the Revenue accepted sales arising from the same goods, it could not entirely disallow purchases as bogus. The decision emphasized the importance of stock records, invoices, and transport documents.
The Orissa High Court held that dismissal of a Section 34 challenge petition on maintainability grounds effectively amounts to refusal to set aside an arbitral award under Section 37. The Court restored the challenge petition for adjudication on merits.
Delhi ITAT held that Dividend Distribution Tax paid on dividends to non-resident shareholders could be restricted to the treaty rate under applicable DTAAs. The Tribunal relied on the Bombay High Court ruling that DDT is, in substance, a tax on shareholder dividend income.
The Mumbai ITAT held that reversal of securitisation provisions already disallowed in earlier years cannot be taxed again upon write-back. The Tribunal ruled that such taxation would amount to double taxation.
The Chennai ITAT held that deductions approved by DSIR under Section 35(2AB) cannot be disallowed merely on the basis of survey statements or AO findings. The Tribunal ruled that the AO and DRP exceeded their jurisdiction by questioning deductions already certified in Form 3CL.
The Supreme Court held that grants disbursed by a statutory corporation formed part of its core business functions and qualified as deductible revenue expenditure. The ruling clarified that such grants were not mere application of income.
