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 issue was whether bogus purchases disallowed under section 37(1) must be reclassified as unexplained expenditure under section 69C. ITAT held that where the source of expenditure is known, section 69C cannot be mechanically invoked.
The Tribunal ruled that AMP expenses incurred by a brand-owning trader cannot be allocated to contract manufacturers without proof of obligation or agreement. Tax incentives enjoyed by related entities alone were held insufficient.
The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue’s appeal by holding that interest incurred on borrowings used for project development must be capitalised. Absence of evidence showing alternative use of funds justified capitalization.
ITAT Jaipur held that claim on account of provision of future expense is allowable under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act as per matching principle of accountancy. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
The tribunal held that commission paid to overseas agents was a normal business expense and not taxable in India. Since no TDS was required, disallowance under section 37(1) was unsustainable.
The Tribunal ruled that section 271AAB applies only to undisclosed income found in search, not to routine disallowances from recorded books.
The Tribunal reiterated that tax authorities cannot impose notional income merely because interest could have been charged. Commercial decisions on interest-free advances lie with the assessee, not the assessing officer.
The tribunal held that every oil well constitutes an independent undertaking eligible for deduction under section 80IB(9). The key takeaway is that profits of individual wells cannot be clubbed merely because they operate under a single contract.
The ITAT held that revision under Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the PCIT disagrees with the Assessing Officer’s view. Once enquiries are made and explanations accepted, substitution of opinion is impermissible.
ITAT Bangalore restored ₹4.19 crore claimed as revenue loss to CIT(A) for fresh examination. The Tribunal emphasized that proper assessment under Sections 37(1) and 28 is essential before allowing write-offs.
