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...
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Mumbai) The assessing officer disallowed the premium paid on FCCB holding that being capital and contingent. The learned CIT(A) allow relief to the assessee by following the decision of tribunal in earlier years. We have seen that the coordinate bench of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for […]
Period of lease for which the property has been taken cannot be regarded as a decisive test to determine the nature of the expenditure. It is not disputed that the stamp duty amount has been paid on lease deed for the carrying on of the business of the assessee and therefore the amount of stamp duty paid for has to be allowed as revenue expenditure.
ITAT states the code of conduct prescribed by the Medical Council is applicable only to medical practitioners/ doctors registered with the MCI and does not apply to pharmaceutical companies & the healthcare sector in any manner.
We know that there are five heads of income, in which income of any assessee has been taxed. There may be different types of income an assessee earned during previous year such as income from salary, House Property, Profit and gain from business or profession, Capital Gain and Income from other sources. Section 28 is […]
The issue under consideration is whether the stamp duty paid for obtaining the business premises on lease is deductible under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
According to ITAT, the claim of assessee on account of Pay anomaly of employee crystallized during the year should have been accepted and he, therefore, granted relief to the assessee. Further, they observed that in the order dated 24.12.2009 for assessment year 2006-07 in assessee’s own case, the Tribunal decided that the liability crystallized during the year has to be allowed. Hence, now they do not find anything improper in the approach of the CIT(A) to allow the expenses in respect of which the liability crystallized during the year.
It is noted that the assessee is into the business of truck plying in North-East States and it is common knowledge that the drivers and cleaners before they start their journey on their trucks conduct puja of the God they believe and they incur expenses for buying garlands, bhog etc. for safe and smooth running of the vehicle while they go to the pre-destined location which are located in the remote areas of Assam, Meghalaya and Mizoram to deliver/collect goods. The expenses thus it is noted are incurred by the assessee for puja is for the smooth functioning of the business of transport as discussed cannot be disallowed.
High Court states that so long as functions of the computers are performed with other functions and other functions are dependant on the functions of the computer, ATMs are to be treated as computers and are entitled to higher rate of depreciation.
Whether the exchange fluctuation loss on Business Advance on Balance Sheet considered as business loss by Appellant are allowable under Section 37(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961?
The issue under consideration is whether A.O. is correct in disallowing claim of stamp duty and registration charges by considering it as capital expenditure?
