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 Tribunal held that purchases from a foreign supplier were genuine as goods were imported through customs and duly recorded in books. It upheld deletion of addition under Section 68 on this ground.
ITAT Mumbai held that deeming fiction of section 50C cannot be extended while working out the written down value [WDV] for the purpose of claiming depreciation on the block of asset. In other words, legal fiction for substantiating the sale consideration by the Stamp Duty Value created under either section 50 or section 43CA cannot be extended to section 32 for claiming depreciation on the block of the asset. Thus, order set aside.
Assessees were qualified as companies owning an industrial undertaking within the meaning of Section 72A. Accordingly, the carry forward and set-off of accumulated business losses and unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating transport corporations was allowable.
The ruling clarifies that CSR-related disallowance under Section 37(1) applies only from AY 2015-16 onwards. For earlier years, expenses with a business nexus remain deductible.
Adjustments made through CPC were not finally upheld where the assessee raised a valid factual plea on timing of salary payment. The ruling highlights that mechanical disallowances must give way to proper verification.
The Tribunal condoned a 506-day delay after accepting that the appeal was filed only when heavy penalty exposure created prosecution risk. The key takeaway is that bona fide reliance on legal advice and later developments can constitute sufficient cause for condonation.
The tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A cannot be levied where the assessee voluntarily withdrew the education cess claim after a retrospective amendment. A bona fide claim made on prevailing judicial views does not amount to under-reporting or misreporting.
Restoring the Assessing Officer’s findings, the Tribunal ruled that excessive salary to related directors can be disallowed when it substitutes dividend distribution. Reasonableness must be judged against comparable market remuneration.
The issue was whether the entire purchase amount could be added under Section 69C based solely on an entry-operator’s denial. The Tribunal ruled that since sales were accepted and books not rejected, only a 10% estimated disallowance was justified.
The Tribunal held that employee stock option plan costs are allowable revenue expenditure. Following binding High Court precedent, the ₹93 lakh disallowance was deleted.
