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-...
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
In the case of D.C.I.T. vs Autoline Industries Ltd, Pune Tribunal held that foreign exchange cover taken by the assessee from DBS Bank was in order to prevent itself from future currency rate fluctuations. Later, it had to close its agreement with DBS Bank in view of the offer made by the principal lender i.e. Citi Bank.
Dhimant Hiralal Thakar vs CIT (Bombay High Court)- Eyes are thus essential not only for the purpose of business or profession but for purposes other than these which are so many. It is therefore clear that the said expenditure as claimed by the applicant is not in the nature of the expenditure wholly
Even though the excise duty was for manufacturing activity that occurred earlier, the liability to pay such additional duty did not exist in the previous years and as a result, could not have been claimed by the assessee as expenditure in the concerned previous years.
