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...
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.
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.
