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...
In the case of D.C.I.T. vs Autoline Industries Ltd, Pune Tribunal held that foreign exchange cover taken by the assessee from DBS Bank was in order to prevent itself from future currency rate fluctuations. Later, it had to close its agreement with DBS Bank in view of the offer made by the principal lender i.e. Citi Bank.
The losses occurring to an assessee due to dacoity, theft or embezzlement, etc., may be claimed as deductible while making the income chargeable to income-tax under the head profits and gains of business or profession under section 28. The loss by theft is not covered by section 10(2) (xv) of the Income Tax Act, 1922
In CIT vs. Nirlon Synthetic Fibres & Chemicals Ltd. (1982) 137 ITR 1 (Bom) it was observed that expenditure incurred on inauguration ceremony of factory is a compelling necessity in modern times, it is a formality which an assessee has to incur after the business is set-up therefore it is an allowable deduction in terms of section 37(1).
The Supreme Court in CCIT vs. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. (2002) 20 SITC 172 (SC) has laid down that the resort to section 41(1) can be taken only if the liability of the assessee can be said to have ceased finally and there is no possibility or reviving it. Also, it has held that an unilateral action on the part of the assessee by way of writing-off the liability in its accounts does not necessarily mean that the liability ceased in the eye of law.
Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (which corresponds to Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922) allows deduction, while computing the income chargeable under the head profits and gains of business or profession, of any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 of the Act and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee)
Permission/denial by the RBI to register an assessee as NBFC does not decide the issue of carrying of business or make the business illegal. We hold that the interest income earned by the assessee has to be taxed under the head business income and all the expenses related with it have to be allowed.
Following the judgment in the case of Gajapathi Naidu (supra) the question to be asked is when did the expenditure claimed by way of deduction arise? There would have been no occasion to claim the deduction if the work-in-progress had completed its course.
Advertisement expenditure was incurred in terms of the license agreement granting the distribution rights to the assessee by the associated enterprise, Discovery Asia Inc. Under this agreement, the respondent assessee had procured right to distribute the signals of Discovery
Assessee entered into transactions of payment of job work charges to a related party, viz., M/s Razormed Inc. during the financial year relevant to assessment year under consideration without obtaining prior approval of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of section 297 of the Companies Act, 1956.
It is noticed that this expenditure was incurred as a professional fees to defend two directors of the assessee company who were arrested under NDPS Act on being found guilty of the offences under the relevant sections of the said Act.
