Home › › Page 5

Search Results For: 37(1)

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: August 11, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 22, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 1990-91
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 37(1): Law on when expenditure towards property can be termed as being for protection of the property or for curing a defect and whether that is capital or revenue explained

This payment made by the Appellant in its nature is different from a payment made to protect the property. In fact, Supreme Court in the case of Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v/s. CIT 27 ITR 34 while laying down the criteria to decide/ determine whether the payment is of capital or revenue nature has observed that the aim and object of the expenditure would determine the character of the payment. In the present facts, as pointed out above, the entire aim and object of the payment was not only that the certainty of acquisition is aborted but enduring benefit as pointed out above is obtained by the Appellant. This would conclusively determine that the payment in this case was capital in nature in the capital field

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 11, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 21, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 40(b)(v): Provision in partnership deed for payment of salary at percentage share of profits multiplied by “allocable profits” is valid and entitles claim for deduction. S. 37(1): Contribution by law firm to IFA to create awareness of its activities is business expenditure

A plain reading of Clause 6(a) leads us to a conclusion that the term ‘allocable profits’ was used to mean ‘book profits’ as used in Section 40(b)(v) of the Act or otherwise the reference to the section in the Clause has no meaning. When the partners have understood and meant that the word “allocable profits” to mean surplus/book profits, prior to calculation of partners’ remuneration, and when such an understanding is manifest in its actions, we do not see any reason why the Revenue authorities should not understand this term in the same sense

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 3, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 15, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 37(1): The very nature of a license agreement is that it is not of a permanent nature. The fact that the payment is spread over a period of 10 yearst does not make the assessee the owner of the technical knowhow. The payment is not of an enduring nature

Although the payment is spread over a period of 10 years, it does not make the Assessee the owner of the technical knowhow. The very nature of the license agreement is that it is not of a permanent nature. The benefit to the Assessee as a result of payment of royalty for technical knowhow was not of an enduring nature, and therefore cannot be construed to be a capital expenditure

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 13, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 10, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 37(1): Even if no business is carried, the expenditure incurred to maintain the corporate entity has to be allowed as a deduction

There is no doubt that the assessee is a corporate entity. Even if it is not carrying on any business activity it has to incur some expenditure to keep up its corporate entity. Therefore expenditure incurred by it has to be allowed

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 23, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 26, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 37(1): Expenditure on an aborted capital project is revenue in nature & can be claimed as deduction in year of abandoning the project

Expenditure made for construction/acquisition of new facility subsequently abandoned at the work-in-progress stage is allowable as incurred wholly or exclusively for the purpose of assessee’s business. It is revenue expenditure as it does not result in the acquisition of an asset or an advantage of an enduring nature

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 23, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 24, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 1996-97
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 36(1)(iii)/ 37(1): Normally revenue expenditure incurred in a particular year has to be allowed in that year and if the assessee claims that expenditure in that year, the Department cannot deny the same. Fact that assessee has deferred the expenditure in the books of account is irrelevant. However, if the assessee himself wants to spread the expenditure over a period of ensuing years, it can be allowed only if the principle of 'Matching Concept' is satisfied

U/s 36(1)(iii) when the interest was actually incurred by the assessee, which follows the mercantile system of accounting, the assessee would be entitled to deduction of full amount in the assessment year in which it is paid. The High Court wrongly applied the “Matching Concept” to deny the deduction of the upfront interest payment in the first year.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 18, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 16, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
(i) Mark-to-market loss on interest rate swap contracts is not a notional loss, (ii) Benefit against s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance conferred in Kotak Securities 340 ITR 333 (Bom) has to be extended to cases where ROI was filed pre-delivery of the verdict

The Hon’ble High Court further observed that in these circumstances if both the parties for nearly a decade proceeded on the footing that section 194J is not attracted, then in the assessment year in question, no fault can be found with the assessee in not deducting tax at source under section 194J of the Act and consequently, no action could be taken under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. As the Return of income for the year under consideration was filed on 14/08/2009 and this decision of the Hon’ble was pronounced on 21/10/2011. Thus, the assessee had already filed the return of income and the time period for deducting tax at source was also lapsed. Considering these peculiar facts, in our considered opinion no disallowance on this account should be made for the year under consideration

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 18, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 16, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 29/37(1): Loss due to fraud & financial irregularities has to be allowed in the year of detection

Loss due to fraud and financial irregularities have to be allowed as a deduction in the year of detection. This is in line with the Board circular No.35D(XLVII- 20)(F.No.10/48/65-IT(A-I) dated 24.11.1965 and the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Associated Banking Corporation Of India Limited. vs CIT reported in 56 ITR 1(SC)

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 10, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 12, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 37(1): principles for deduction of business expenditure reiterated

The question that was posed by the High Court was whether acceptance of the agreements, affidavits and proof of payment would debar the assessing authority to go into the question whether the expenses claimed would still be allowable under Section 37 of the Act. This is a question which the High Court held was required to be answered in the facts of each case in the light of the decision of this Court in Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 1967 (63) ITR 57 and Lachminarayan Madan Lal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax West Bengal 1972 (86) ITR 439

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 11, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 24, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
(i) Even if gains have accrued on execution of the development agreement as per Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas, the subsequent modification/ supercession of the agreement means that gains are not taxable as per real income theory, (ii) expenditure on buy-back of shares of warring shareholders is business expenditure

In Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia, the issue was to determine the year in which the property was transferred for the purpose of capital gains. In this case the issue is what is the consideration received for the transfer of an asset. No income is accrued or received of the value of 18000 sq.feet of constructed area under the development agreement because the said agreement was not acted upon as it came to be uperseded/modified by the Tripartite agreement. This was the position when the return of income was filed. On the application of the real income theory, there would be neither accrual nor receipt of income to warrant bringing to tax to the constructed area of 18,000 sq.ft which has not been received by the assessee (CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas 46 ITR 144 (SC) followed)

Read more ›