Year: 2018

Archive for 2018


Anil Contractors P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 63 ITR 4(SN) (Cuttack) ( Trib)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure –Compelled to make cash payments to labourers at work sites in remote areas, genuineness of expenditure could not be doubted. However, where no proper documentation or bills or vouchers were maintained, disallowance was to be restricted to 10 percent of the total claim .

Amit Ghose v. DCIT (2018) 63 ITR 44 (SN)(Kol) ( Trib)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure – Club subscription fees were incurred for holding meetings with senior doctors, for upgradation of skills, such expenses were to be allowed as business expenditure .

Amit Ghose v. DCIT (2018) 63 ITR 44 (SN)(Kol) ( Trib)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure – Dinner expenses and gift expenses were incurred while holding meetings in hotel with senior doctors, for upgradation of skills and discussion of latest techniques and methods, such expenses were to be allowed as business expenditure

Amit Ghose v. DCIT (2018) 63 ITR 44 (SN) (Kol) ( Trib)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure –Advertisement and publicity expenses were incurred for dissemination of knowledge for public at large, such expenses were to be allowed as business expenditure .

Kannan Devan Hills Plantations Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 62 ITR 451 (Cochin)(Trib.)

S.37(1): Business expenditure – Growing tea – The expenditure relating to the maintenance of cattle owned by the employees was considered as expenditure of tea operation – The recoveries from employees against such expenditure were disclosed under other income. -Since expenditure incurred on cattle keepers was purely labour welfare measure which was approved by Plantation Labour Committee, expenditure incurred was directly relatable to tea business of assessee, therefore, same should be treated as expenditure under Rule 8 of the I.T. Rules. [ R.8 ]

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (OSD) (2018) 63 ITR 244 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Capital or revenue –Amortization of premium paid on leasehold land – Premium in nature of rent – Allowable as revenue expenditure.

Shalom Charitable Ministries of India v. ACIT (2018) 171 ITD 338/ 195 TTJ 340/( 2019) 177 DTR 22 (Cochin)(Trib.)

S.36(1)(vii) : Bad debts– Provision for bad and doubtful debts which was not written off cannot be allowable as deduction .

Powerware India P. Ltd. v. ITO ( 2018) 61 ITR 746 (Cuttack) ( Trib)

S. 36(1)(va) : Any sum received from employees – Employees contribution to PF and ESI was allowable deduction to the assessee if deposited before due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. [ S.139(1) ]

Prakash Software Solution (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 161 DTR 9 / 191 TTJ 64(Ahd.) (Trib)

S. 36(1)(v); Contribution approved gratuity fund -Payment to a gratuity fund on a date prior to date of approval of a gratuity fund- Deduction cannot be denied .

ACIT v. Pasadensa Foods Ltd. (2018) 163 DTR 243 (Delhi)( Trib.)

S. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital – Capital was borrowed for acquisition of fixed assets and only a part of assets were put to use- Interest was to be allowed only to the extent the assets were operational during the current year.