Income Tax : This guide explains how Section 43B(h) defers tax deductions where payments to Micro and Small Enterprises remain unpaid beyond th...
Income Tax : The Central Government, in the Union Budget 2026, has proposed an important amendment concerning employee welfare funds. The objec...
Income Tax : 2023 Income Tax change (Sec 43B(h)) mandates that deductions for payments to Micro and Small Enterprises are allowed only when pai...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court upholds disallowance of delayed PF/ESI contributions under Section 143(1), but permits deductions when the due da...
Income Tax : Practical guide to tax audit under Section 44AB for trader assessees, covering groundwork, data analysis, compliance checks, and f...
CA, CS, CMA : Explore recent updates on corporate tax rates, MSME concerns over tax deductions, and GST rates for shawls as addressed in Lok Sab...
Income Tax : Punjab Accountants Association urges Finance Minister to amend Section 43(B)(h) for MSMEs, proposing better payment timelines and ...
Income Tax : Discover how proposed amendment in Section 43B of Income Tax Act, 1961, affects MSMEs. Learn about potential challenges and sugges...
Income Tax : Live Webinar with Book on Section 43B(h) (Financial Fitness) on 10th May 2024, 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm. CA Manoj Lamba will break down ...
Income Tax : Explore how the new 43 B (h) clause of the IT Act impacts Kerala Textiles and Garments Dealers Welfare Association and their appea...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that although CSR expenditure is not allowable under Section 37, eligible donations made to recognised institut...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi held that the Transfer Pricing Officer could not arbitrarily determine the arm's length price of management service...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi held that the Revenue could not substitute the assessee's consistent method of revenue recognition with the Percent...
Income Tax : The ITAT Mumbai held that Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) could not apply in the absence of any finding by the competent authority ...
Income Tax : The dispute concerned deduction of CSR expenditure incurred before Explanation 2 to section 37(1) became applicable. The ITAT held...
Income Tax : Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has recently issued a crucial notification concerning the payment of interest on loans to Non...
Corporate Law : Explore how the recent policy update impacts MSMEs and traders regarding delayed payment benefits under the MSMED Act, 2006. Insig...
Income Tax : Disallowances made under sections 32, 40(a)(ia), 40A(3), 43B, etc. of the Act and other specific disallowances, related to the bus...
Income Tax : Income Tax Circular No. 22/2015 W.c.f. 1.4.1988, the settled position is that if the assessee deposits any sum payable by it by wa...
Income Tax : Whether the liability has been deferred or not has to be considered not from the simplistic point of the term 'defer' but in conte...
Employees’ contribution towards PF paid by the assessee before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration is admissible.
Where a foreign company gives a technical know-how and obtains equity shares in the new company, the amount attributable to technical know-how was not revenue expenditure under section 37 of the Act. However, it was treated to be of capital nature.
The supreme court has upheld the principle of exclusion of excise duty component from valuation of closing stock in the case of Dynavision Limited (SC). The important principle laid down in the case of Chainrup Sampatram (24 ITR 481 (SC)) & Hindustan Zinc Ltd (291 ITR 391 SC)) has been reiterated in its decision :
Calcutta High Court in Exide Industries case (supra) held that leave encashment is neither a statutory liability nor a contingent liability and it is a provision to be made for the entitlement of an employee achieved in a particular financial year. Testing clause (f) with the objects sought to be achieved by the introduction of Section 43 B, it was held that the same could not have any nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the original enactment.
Issue is decided by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Virgin Creations that the amendment in the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by Finance Act, 2010 is remedial and curative in nature and TDS paid on or before the due date of filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act, deduction in respect to the amount on which TDS is so paid, is allowable. In the present case the assessee deducted tax in February, 2007 but the same was deposited in May, 2007 for the AY 2007-08 that means the TDS was paid before due date of filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act by the assessee, hence, we allow the claim of assessee. This issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed.
Calcutta High Court held that the fee or charges received by the Government for parting with its exclusive right to manufacture or vend intoxicants is neither a tax nor a duty nor a fee nor a cess. Here in the present case, the KMC’s exclusive right to built market and let out to shop owners on licence basis under licence agreement dated 15.02.1985 is not a fee as prescribed u/s. 43B of the Act.
ITO, Bharuch Vs The Ankleshwar Taluka ONGC (ITAT Ahmedabad)- It is pertinent to note that in the assessment order, the AO disallowed the entire payment made to the farmers amounting to Rs.2,57,62,253/- by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of he IT Act. Apart from this, the AO disallowed Rs. 51,47,250/- under Section 40A(3) of the Act. Thus, the disallowance of Rs.51,47,250/- was made twice i.e. once under Section 40A(3) and then invoking section 40(a(ia).
After going through the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., we find that the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has held that the amendment to the second proviso to the Sec 43(B) of the Income Tax Act
CIT v Alembic Glass Industries Limited (High Court of Gujarat) – The law is settled – if a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year, the deduction should be allowed although the liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date.What should be certain is the incurring of the liability. It should be capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty though the actual quantification may not be possible. If these requirements are satisfied the liability is not a contingent one. The liability is in praesenti though it will be discharged at a future date. It does not make any difference if the future date on which the liability shall have to be discharged is not certain.
The only issue in this appeal of the revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the AO on account of employees’ contribution to ESI & PF by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. For this revenue has raised the following two grounds:
