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 : Interest income earned by a foreign bank from foreign currency loans extended to Indian corporates was taxable on a gross basis. S...
Income Tax : ITAT Jodhpur held that Section 37(1) business expenses cannot be disallowed without specific findings on genuineness. All appeals ...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that an accrued business liability supported by evidence is deductible under Section 37(1) despite future payment...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that eligible CSR donations qualify for Section 80G deduction if statutory conditions are met, despite disallowan...
Income Tax : ITAT held that increased employee remuneration cannot be disallowed merely because business revenue declined where the expenditure...
Additions made by attributing the commission income earned by PSPL as undisclosed income of the Assessees were held unsustainable in law and were directed to be deleted across all relevant assessment years as Revenue had failed to establish inflation of purchase prices; accrual of PSPL’s commission income to assessees; any flow back of funds to the Assessees; or that PSPL was a sham or fictitious entity.
The ITAT Bangalore upheld deduction of ESOP expenditure under Section 37, holding that the liability arising from employee stock options is an ascertained business expense. The Tribunal followed the Karnataka High Court ruling in Biocon Ltd. despite pending appeals before the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal noted that donations to Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund made towards CSR obligations are specifically excluded under section 80G, while no similar embargo exists for other eligible institutions. Consequently, the assessee’s claim for deduction was allowed in full.
The Tribunal held that once Second Line Support services were examined and covered under an Advance Pricing Agreement, disallowance under Section 37(1) could not be sustained.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance under Section 14A must be computed only with reference to investments that actually yielded exempt income. The Tribunal also deleted interest disallowance after finding that the assessee’s interest-free funds exceeded its investments.
ITAT Delhi held that CSR-related donations can qualify for deduction under Section 80G when made to institutions approved under that provision. The Tribunal directed verification of eligibility and allowed the claim for statistical purposes.
The ITAT Bangalore held that a deduction under Section 80G cannot be denied solely because the payment formed part of CSR expenditure. The Tribunal observed that denying the claim after CSR disallowance under Section 37(1) could result in double disallowance and remanded the matter for verification.
The Bangalore ITAT held that a disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot survive without the Assessing Officer recording satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee’s claim. The Tribunal deleted the disallowance after finding non-compliance with Section 14A(2).
The Tribunal held that business promotion, petrol, and travel expenses cannot be disallowed merely on assumptions of possible personal use. In the absence of specific defects or evidence, ad hoc disallowance under Section 37(1) was deleted.
Periodic or annual fees paid to a sports governing body to sustain annual league participation rights qualify as operational revenue expenses, not capital investments. Hospitality, travel, and boarding expenses incurred on celebrities and VIPs were fully deductible if they were used strategically to amplify brand visibility, ticket distribution, and corporate sponsorships.
