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 Supreme Court examined whether shares received on amalgamation can be taxed as business income when held as stock-in-trade. It ruled that tax arises only if the substitution results in a real, commercially realizable gain, not a mere statutory replacement.
ITAT Mumbai held that artificial profits or losses arising from Client Code Modification in share transactions carried out in F&O segment requires transaction-wise reconciliation. Accordingly, matter restore to the file of AO.
The issue was whether revision could be invoked for allowing LTCG exemption on sale of investments. The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer examined the claim, the order was not erroneous or prejudicial.
The issue was whether revision under section 263 was valid for multiple expense claims. The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer had examined issues and adopted a plausible view, revision was unsustainable.
The Tribunal upheld revision since business expenses were within limited scrutiny and education cess deduction was not verified. The key takeaway is that lack of enquiry on a covered issue makes the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal ruled that absence of formal registers or third-party bills does not automatically make expenses bogus. Additions based purely on estimates, without proof of inflation, are arbitrary and unsustainable.
Mumbai ITAT ruled that expenses covered by a binding APA cannot be revisited under section 37 on a “need or benefit” test. Reopening settled transfer pricing issues would defeat the statutory purpose of APA.
Delhi ITAT ruled that purchases from paper companies cannot be treated as normal business expenses under Section 37(1). Fraudulent transactions with no goods delivered attract unexplained expenditure taxation under Section 69C and 115BBE.
he tribunal held that an appellate order based on an incorrect and reconstructed timeline of statutory notices is unsustainable. Errors in sequencing of notices strike at the root of jurisdiction and require fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal reaffirmed that once expenditure is shown to be wholly and exclusively for business, section 37(1) disallowance cannot survive. Suspicion cannot override documentary and commercial reality.
