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...
Ocean Agro (India) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) A short issue before us is, whether compounding fees expended by the assessee is compensatory in nature, and allowable expenditure under section 37(1) or not. We find that Explanation 1 appended to section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act prohibits allowance of any expenditure, if it was incurred […]
Brief facts are, the assessee a non–banking finance company (NBFC) is engaged in hire, purchase, finance and loan business. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 31-10-2007, declaring loss of Rs. 12,06,02,070.
FCCB is akin to borrowings made by issuing debentures and both of them are different types of debt instruments only. Accordingly it was held in the case of Prime Focus Ltd. (supra), that the expenses incurred in connection with FCCB are revenue in nature.
Keerthi Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) The assessee has paid compounding fine to regularize the building plan. The payment of such compounding fine is penalty in the nature of an offence or which is prohibited by law. We have noticed that the decision on this count is divided among the various courts. The […]
These are appeals filed by the assessee-firm directed against the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Gulbarga, dated 29-1-2016 for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. Since common issue is involved in both the appeals, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order.
Circular No. 35 issued by Board clearly states the losses arising due to negligence of employees has to be allowed as expense if the loss took place in the normal course of the business and the amount involved was necessarily kept for the purpose of business. In the present case, the losses were necessarily incurred in the normal course of business of assessee and therefore, the expenditure was allowable.
These cross appeals are directed against the order dated 29th December 2015 passed by the CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2012-13. Both of these appeals are being disposed of, as a matter of convenience, by this consolidated order.
DCIT Vs Adsun Offshore Diving Contractors Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Given facts of the present case that whatever test may be applied in deciding whether any expenditure is allowable as a deduction under section 37, the essential requirement must in every case be as to whether the expenditure was either in reality or as a […]
In the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd vs. ACIT , ITAT Cochin held that The loss on sale of shares of a wholly-owned subsidiary is allowable under Section 37(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 as a business loss if the investment in the subsidiary was made for commercial purposes.
Section 37(1): (1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession
