Income Tax : Explains when food and hospitality expenses qualify as business deductions and outlines the tests under Section 37(1) to distingui...
Income Tax : Explains how Section 37(1) restricts deductions to expenses exclusively for business and highlights gray-area items like home offi...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held settlement payments in foreign civil cases are deductible under Section 37(1) as compensatory, not penal, and ...
Income Tax : Summary of Section 37(1) IT Act for business expenditure deduction. Covers "wholly and exclusively" test, commercial expediency, ...
Income Tax : Examines the tax implications of employer-funded education, covering employer deductions and employee taxation. Includes analysis ...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court held that interest paid on borrowed funds was deductible under Section 36(1)(iii) because the loan was used for ...
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 : ITAT Mumbai held that although foreign commission expenditure was non-genuine and liable for disallowance, amounts already written...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai held that before the 2016 amendment, DSIR approval under Section 35(2AB) related to the in-house R&D facility and not...
Income Tax : The Mumbai ITAT allowed deduction of professional fees paid for facilitating remittances relating to Iranian-origin imports affect...
The Tribunal upheld deduction of ESOP expenses, relying on earlier decisions in the same case. It ruled that no change in facts justified a different view.
The case examines whether estimated expense disallowances can be made without rejecting books of account. ITAT held such additions invalid, emphasizing that Section 145(3) rejection is a prerequisite. The ruling protects taxpayers from arbitrary disallowances.
ITAT Mumbai rules actuarial provisions for employee benefit schemes are allowable under Section 37(1) as ascertained liabilities, deletes major disallowances on expense provisions, limits TDS applicability to payment stage, and prevents double taxation of expenses.
The Tribunal upheld deduction of ESOP expenses under Section 37(1) by relying on binding jurisdictional High Court precedent. It ruled that prior judicial decisions in the assessee’s own case justified deletion of disallowance.
The Tribunal held that omission of taxable foreign exchange gain in the return attracts penalty. It noted that disclosure during assessment does not absolve liability. The ruling highlights importance of correct income reporting.
The issue was whether CSR expenditure disallowed under Section 37(1) can still qualify under Section 80G. The Tribunal held that both provisions operate independently, allowing deduction if statutory conditions are met.
The case examined whether settlement of a corporate guarantee liability qualifies as business expenditure. The Tribunal held that the guarantee was given for business purposes and the resulting payment was allowable.
The Court held that reassessment based solely on an audit objection is invalid as it constitutes a change of opinion. It emphasized that previously examined issues cannot be reopened without new tangible material. The ruling reinforces limits on reassessment powers.
The Tribunal upheld that ESOP discount is a valid business expense under Section 37(1), rejecting the view that it is notional or capital. The key takeaway is that ESOP costs are allowable as employee compensation.
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The matter concerns two appeals filed by the assessee against orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai, for Assessment Years (AY) 2015–16 and 2019–20. Both appeals arise from assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since […]
