Home › › Page 2

Search Results For: business expenditure

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 29, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 15, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Expl to s. 37(1): Penalties & fines paid to SEBI, BSE etc for breach of regulatory/ procedural requirements are "compensatory" in nature and not for any purpose which is an ‘offense’ prohibited by the law

An ‘offence’ would be the one which will arise as a result to commission of an action which is prohibited by law, and, in all the given situations, no element of any consent of the parties involved can bring any change in its legal consequences. Similarly, any amount paid by the assessee, in the form of compensation, as a consequence of breach of contract between the two parties, cannot be said to be amount paid for any purpose which is an ‘offence’, prohibited by the law. In other words, under the income tax law, one is required to go into the real nature of the transactions and not to the nomenclature that may have been assigned by the parties. Thus, to decide such issues, we are required to see real substance under the Income Tax Law, and not merely its form. Thus, only those payments, which have been made by the assessee for any purpose which is an ‘offence’ or which is ‘prohibited by law’, shall alone would be hit by the explanation to section 37

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 28, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 15, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
There is a distinction betwen "setting up" and "commencement" of a business. A business is "set up" and expenditure is deductible even if assessee has no customers and no income

The assessee has already purchased residential flat for the purpose of resale/lease, and therefore assessee was apparently ready to do its business. Under these circumstances, it can be said that the business is set up by the assessee during the year under consideration. For the deductibility of expenses incurred after this stage, earning of the business income is not a mandatory condition under the law. The assessee may not have been successful in getting customers or earning the business income, but if the assessee has done requisite preparations and if the assessee can be said to be in a position to cater to its customers, then it can be said that business is set up and it would amount to carrying on the business and accordingly the expenses would stand allowable to the assessee, irrespective of the fact whether actually assessee got any customer and earned any business income during the year or not

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 23, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 6, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 37(1): While receiving of gifts by doctors is prohibited by MCI Guidelines, the giving of such gifts by Pharma companies is not prohibited by any law. CBDT Circular dated 01.08.2012 is prospective

Receiving of gifts by doctors was prohibited by MCI guidelines, giving of the same by manufacturer is not prohibited under any law for the time being in force. Giving small gifts bearing company logo to doctors does not tantamount to giving gifts to doctors but it is regarded as advertising expenses. As regards sponsoring doctors for conferences and extending hospitality, pharmaceuticals companies have been sponsoring practicing doctors to attend prestigious conferences so that they gather contemporary knowledge about management of certain illness/disease and learn about newer therapies. We found that the disallowance was made by the AO by relying on the CBDT Circular dated 01.08.2012 onwards. However, the Circular was not applicable because it was introduced w.e.f.01.08.2012. i.e. assessment year 2013-2014, whereas the relevant assessment year under consideration is 2010-2011 and 2011-2012

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 30, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 27, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 43B/ 145A: Taxes collected by the assessee, which remain unpaid, have to be added to the income even if the same are not debited to the P&L A/c and claimed as a deduction

In view of the provisions of the Act i.e. section 145A of the Act, we find no merit in the plea of the assessee in not recognizing the VAT attributable to its sales as part of the sale consideration of the goods while computing its Profit & Loss Account. The mandatory provisions of Central Act i.e. section 145A of the Act supersedes the provisions of any State Act i.e. Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. Once the assessee recognized the VAT amount as part of the sale consideration, it tantamount to the said entry being routed through the Profit & Loss Account, especially in the cases where the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 6 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 5, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 26, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 1988-89
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 36(1)(iii): Law on when interest expenditure on loans diverted to sister concerns and directors can be allowed as business expenditure explained

Once it is established that there is nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the Board of Directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case. It further held that no businessman can be compelled to maximize his profit and that the income tax authorities must put themselves in the shoes of the assessee and see how a prudent businessman would act. The authorities must not look at the matter from their own view point but that of a prudent businessman

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 7 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 18, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 18, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 37(1): Cost of Employees Stock Option (ESOP) debited to P&L A/c is allowable business expenditure

The question sought to be projected by the Revenue is whether the ITAT erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,28,19,169/- made by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) by way of disallowance of the expenses debited as cost of Employees Stock Option (‘ESOP’) in profit and loss account?

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 28, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 17, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 1986-87
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 37(1): Though eyes are an important tool for the performance of functions by a professional (solicitor), the expenditure on its treatment is personal expenditure and not business expenditure

No evidence has been brought on record to establish that in the absence of investigation and treatment, the applicant would be handicapped in discharging his obligation as a Solicitor/ Advocate. While at this, we cannot resist but point out that in this Court itself, we have a couple of visually challenged Advocates who are very competent in discharging their duties. Taken to its logical conclusion, then every and all expense incurred on daily living and food would be allowable as expenditure under Section 37 of the Act

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 31, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 16, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 36(1)(iii): In a case where advances for non-business purposes are made from mixed funds, neither the AO nor the assessee can claim that the funds have come from a particular source and so the disallowance should be worked out on the basis of the average interest rate

The judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana vs. M/s Abhishek Industries, Ludhiana [2006] 286 ITR 1 (P&H) does not deal with the question of the rate of interest to be applied in cases where the assessee has mixed funds available with it. We also agree with the Tribunal’s view that where mixed funds are diverted towards interest free advances the disallowance should be made up to the level of the average cost of debt to the assessee. There is no justification in taking into consideration the rate of interest in respect of any particular transaction where under an assessee avails advances on interest. An assessee may avail several advances from the same lender or from different lenders and at varying rates of interest. In the absence of anything to indicate that the interest free advance was made only from a particular corresponding advance received by the assessee, the advance made by the assessee would obviously be from the common pool of money. Money lying in a common pool has no identity. The various amounts advanced to the assessee get merged into a common pool. There is no justification then either for the assessee or for the department to take into consideration the rate of interest in respect of a particular advance or advances to the assessee. The only logical approach is to take into consideration the average interest rate at which the assessee has availed of the advances

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 28, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 5, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 37(1): A business is “set up” the moment employees are recruited for the purpose of the business. All expenditure incurred thereafter is allowable as a deduction even if the business has not commenced

Setting up of business is different from commencement of business and the expenditures are allowable on setting up of business. The assessee has recruited employees for the purpose of its business and about 16 employees are for the job of quality assurance. In our considered opinion, upon recruitment of employees, the factum that expenditure under the different heads was incurred is indicative that business was set up

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: , ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: October 16, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 21, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2001-02, 2002-03
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 37(1): If a claim of damages and interest thereon is disputed by the assessee in the court of law, deduction cannot be allowed for the interest claimed on such damages

Once a person has not voluntarily accepted a contractual obligation and further there subsists no legal obligation to pay qua such contractual claim at a particular time, it cannot be said that the person incurred any liability to pay at that point of time so as to make him eligible for deduction on that count. Notwithstanding the fact that obligation relates to an earlier year, the liability to pay arises only in the later year, when a final enforceable obligation to pay is settled against that person. In our considered opinion, there is no qualitative difference between the two situations, viz., first, in which no enforceable liability to pay is created in the first instance, and second, in which though the enforceable liability was initially created but the same stands wiped out by the stay on the operation of such enforceable liability. In both the situations, claimant remains without any legal right to recover the amount and equally the opposite party without any legal obligation to pay the same

Read more ›