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 expense incurred for getting the finance for normal business operations does not provide any enduring benefit to the assessee as such, the one-time loan processing fees was revenue expenditure allowable to assessee.
Whether the AO is correct in disallowing expenses incurred on developing and maintaining land in connection with real estate activity?
The issue under consideration is whether prior period items were to be included in the determination of the net profit or loss under Mercantile system of accounting
M/s. Theis Precision Steel India Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) From perusal of Section 37 of the Act, we find that all expenditure incurred in the course of business of the assessee is allowable except personal expenditure and capital expenditure. Admittedly, professional fee has been paid for valuation of know-how of business and, therefore, […]
The issue under consideration is whether the Lease payment in advance for the period varied from 15 to 99 years considered as Capital Expenditure or Revenue Expenditure?
Expenditure on renovation of building taken on lease had to be treated as capital expenditure in view of Expln. 1 to section 32(1), even if assessee was not owner of such building during the period of occupation.
A pure reimbursement doesn’t constitute a reward or compensation paid for a service rendered. Hence, a mere reimbursement of expenses cannot be construed as ‘royalty’ or ‘payments for services rendered’ since what is achieved by a reimbursement is a mere repayment of what has been already spent.
Loss on account of issuance of debentures at premium was expenses for the borrowing and therefore, was allowable as deduction u/s 37 in computing the income however, the loss suffered had to be applied in respect of each year covered by debentures, to an appropriate extent.
In this article, an effort has been made to contend that the cesses payable are a deductible expense under section 37(1) r.w. section 40(a)(ii) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). It is well settled that the cess levied on indirect taxes is an allowable expenses and thereby the sole focus of the article lies on cess payable under the Income tax Act.
This article is about one of the most important things which came out in terms that how to treat fees paid for enhancement of authorized capital to Registrar of Companies. Will it be a revenue expenditure or capital expenditure? Before starting it up and finding the answer let’s just start it with what is Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 all about.
