Home › › Page 6

Search Results For: 37(1)

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 2, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 5, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Premium paid to buyback shares of recalcitrant shareholders is to facilitate smooth running of business and is allowable as revenue business expenditure

From the case-laws referred to in the said commentary, it is amply clear that while accepting the compromise or settlement between the two warring groups, for a proceeding under ss. 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, the Court …

DCIT vs. Bramha Corp. Hotels & Resorts Ltd (ITAT Pune) Read More »

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 19, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 3, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 37(1): Non-compete fee to ex-MD is revenue expenditure

A payment has to be seen from the context of commercial and business expediency. If the outgoing expenditure is so inextricably linked or related to carrying on or conduct of the business, that is, it can be regarded as integral …

ACIT vs. Clariant Chemicals (I) Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) Read More »

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 16, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 17, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 1999-2000
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 28/ 37(1): Even if the business is illegal, a loss which is incidental to such business has to be allowed u/s 28 and the Explanation to s. 37(1) has no bearing

The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs.40,34,898 on account of gold seized by the Custom Authorities. The Tribunal rejected the claim by relying on the Explanation to s. 37(1) of the Act. The assessee claimed before the High Court that …

Bipinchandra K. Bhatia vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court) Read More »

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 5, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 14, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 14A/ Rule 8D: Interest expenditure attributable to a taxable business cannot be disallowed. Expenditure on creating assets which do not belong to the assessee is revenue expenditure

(i) Once it was duly established that no borrowed funds on which interest was paid had been invested for earning tax free income, no disallowance was permissible under Section 14A. The Tribunal has observed that under Rule 8D(2)(ii), a proportionate …

ACIT vs. Dhampur Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd (Allahabad High Court) Read More »

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 5, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 10, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Purchases cannot be treated as bogus solely on the ground that suppliers are not traceable if the assessee has paid by a/c payee cheques and produced the income-tax and sales-tax documents and bank statements of the suppliers

(i) A perusal of the orders passed by the tax authorities would show that they have suspected the genuineness of the purchases only for the reason that the above said five parties were not available in the given addresses. It …

Ganpatraj A Sanghavi vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Read More »

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 31, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 4, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 37(1): Law on deductibility of expenditure incurred on legal fees to defend criminal proceedings explained

(i) The ratio of the decisions in CIT vs. Birla Brothers 82 ITR 166 (SC), CIT vs. Dhanrajgiri Raja Narsinghgiri (1973) 91 ITR 544 (SC), CIT Vs. H. Hirjee (1953) 23 ITR 427 (SC) and CIT Vs. Chaman Lal & …

Praveen Saxena vs. JCIT (ITAT Delhi) Read More »

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 14, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 15, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06 & 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Expenditure by way of royalty for use of technology cannot be disallowed on the ground of being capital in nature or for non-business purpose

The arrangement between the assessee and the Australian company has been duly signed by both the parties. The rate per piece has also been specified therein. The royalty has been paid in actual. MACNAUGHT is not a related concern of …

Groz Engineering Tools Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Read More »

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 13, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 14, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Advertisement expenditure incurred by agent to popularize the business of the channel run by the foreign principal is allowable as there is a direct business between the expenditure and the assessee's business as agent. The fact that the foreign principals also benefited does not entail right to deny deduction under section 37(1)

The main grounds on which the revenue has questioned the order of the tribunal are (a) non disclosure in form 3CEB of the fact that the principal is also a beneficiary of the advertising expenses; (b) that the advertising and …

CIT vs. N.G.C. Network (India) P. Ltd (Bombay High Court) Read More »

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 13, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 14, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
TPO cannot question commercial expediency of payment to AE. RBI approval to a transaction implies it is at arms' length price

We are of the opinion that the TPO was incorrect in going into the business expediency of payment of royalty and arriving at the conclusion of the quantum of the royalty. We find support for this proposition in the decision …

DCIT vs. Owens Corning Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Hyderabad) Read More »