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...
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.
Brooke Bond India Ltd. Vs. JCIT & Anr. (Calcutta High Court) – Tribunal was justified in law in not allowing the sum of Rs.1,43,35,000/- which represents the liability on account of pension on the basis of the resolution of the Board payable to the employee till their death. Whether, the liability on account of pension on the basis of the provisions made should be allowed for the period till the death of the employees or all liabilities should be limited for the period of accounting year relevant to this assessment year.
These two civil appeals are filed by the Department against the order dated 2nd September, 2008, of the Gujarat High Court refusing to formulate, inter alia, the following question of law: “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of this case, was right in confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of
10. What is a provision? This is the question which needs to be answered. A provision is a liability which can be measured only by using a substantial degree of estimation. A provision is recognized when: (a) an enterprise has a present obligation as a result of a past event; (b) it is probable that an outflow of resources will be required to settle the obligation; and (c) a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the obligation
the assessee advanced interest free loan to its sister concern amounting to Rs.5 lacs. According to the Tribunal, there was nothing on record to show that the loans were given to the sister concern by the assessee-firm out of its Own Funds and, therefore, it was not entitled to claim deduction under Section 36(1)(iii). Munjal Sales Corporation Vs.CIT (Supreme Court)
Shri C.S. Vaidyanathan, Shri Ashok Desai, Shri V. Gauri Shankar, Dr. D.P. Pal, Shri Joseph Vellapally, Shri K.N. Shukla, Shri Pallav Shishodia, Shri A.P. Medh, Ms. Priya Hingorani, Shri B.K. Prasad, Shri S.N. Terdol, Shri S. Rajappa, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Shri N.L. Garg, Shri C.V. Subba Rao, Shri Ranbir Chandra, Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Shri S.K. Dwivedi, Shri Tarun Gulati
There is no finding of fact to the effect that actually the loan had been granted to the managing director or any other person on interest, or that interest had actually been collected and the collection of the interest was not reflected in the accounts.
