Corporate Law : Explore the Bombay High Courts landmark ruling: Offences under investigation cant be grounds for externment orders. An in-depth an...
Income Tax : Explore recent Supreme Court rulings (2023) on income tax issues. Highlights of key cases, analysis, and implications....
Company Law : Understand the intricacies of CSR expenditure deduction under Section 80G. Explore recent clarifications and legal standpoints for...
Income Tax : After the decision of SC in Check mate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT order dated 12.10.22, the legal position is now settled that the...
Income Tax : Ensure Compliance: Offering freebies to doctors may lead to serious consequences under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. Any ex...
Income Tax : Explore the ITAT Mumbai's decision on payments to retiring partners by Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP. Understand why it's not con...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai rules no disallowance under Section 14A for investments not yielding tax-free income. Detailed analysis of DCIT vs Par...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT ruling favors G-Tekt India Pvt. Ltd., allowing deduction for CENVAT Credit written off. Detailed analysis of the case a...
Income Tax : Issuance Of Letters Of Comfort/Support will Construe As International Transaction U/s 92B considering corporate guarantee issued b...
Income Tax : Expenditure incurred by assessee should be disallowed to the extent that expenditure which had been incurred for evaluation of bus...
The DOT licence fee paid by assessee is not in the nature of capital expenditure falling under section 35ABB, but the same is revenue in nature, allowable under section 37(1)
At the outset, we may note that although in view of the orders passed by the Committee on disputes, advising the Revenue not to file appeals against Tribunal’s orders, we find some substance in the objection of learned counsel for the Assessee about the maintainability of Revenue’s appeals before the High Court but as we have heard learned counsel for the parties on merits of the appeals, at this stage, we do not propose to go into this question. We also reject at the threshol
The Tribunal was correct in holding that consideration paid by the assessee to certain American Company for providing technicians to train assessee’s personnel in manufacturing, testing, inspection and quality control of its products and to impart know-how and technical data and suggest improvements thereto, did not fall under section 35AB, but was entitled to total relief under section 37(1)
The amount paid for compounding an offence is inevitably a penalty in terms of section 483 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 itself and the mere fact that it has been described as compounding fee cannot, in any way, alter the character of the payment which payment, is in the nature of penalty.
Assessee-company under the tripartite agreement, in particular, clause 4.1 was under no obligation whatsoever to contribute any money to its wholly owned subsidiary YRMPL. The facts as found also show that whatever was spent by the assessee-company by way of advertisements towards liability to advertisers such as O&M and HTA etc. was allowed. Furthermore, the facts also reveal that the total contributions received during the period by YRMPL was Rs 2.64 crores out of which it had admittedly spent Rs 2.19 crores and the balance Rs 44.44 lacs remained unspent. The point to be noted is that what the assessee-company in law could not have claimed directly, that is, by making a provision for advertising expenditure could it then be allowed to claim an amount as an expense merely on account of the fact that it had set up an intermediary in the form of a wholly owned subsidiary
