Year: 2019

Archive for 2019


Dy. CIT v. PPFAS Asset Management P. Ltd. (2019) 72 ITR 41 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Asset management company–Set up of business-Approval from SEBI–Expenditure is allowable though it had not actually commenced its business. [S. 2(13 )]

Dy. CIT v. Oxigen Services India P. Ltd. (2019) 69 ITR 63 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib. )

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Capital or revenue-Software development services-AMP expenses towards Glow Sign Posts-Allowable as revenue expenditure.

Dy. CIT v. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (2019) 70 ITR 5 (SN) (Chennai)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Leave encashment-Provision-Not allowable as deduction. [S. 43B(f)]

CIT. v. V. O. Chidambaranar Port Trust (2019) 311 CTR 227 / 180 DTR 329 / 266 Taxman 141 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Contribution to recognized provident fund–Payment of pension to retired employees-As per scheme approved by the Government which had statutory force, hence, it would fall within the general deductions under S.37(1) and cannot be brought under S.36(1)(iv) and (v) of the Act [ S.36(1)(iv), 36(1) (v) ]

CIT. v. Mineral Enterprises Ltd (2019) 310 CTR 612 / 174 DTR 256 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Accounts—Rejection—Apportionment of proportionate expenditure between two units—Each of the expenses allocated by the assessee has been rightly reflected in the books of accounts of both the units—AO was not justified in computing profits of both the units on the basis of allocation of proportionate expenditures, in the ratio of their respective turnover to the combined turnover. [S. 10B(7), 145]

CIT. v. Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd. (2019) 179 DTR 161 (Mad)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Scientific research-The direction of the State Government for payment of contribution came just before the end of the financial year, entire expenditure is allowable on accrual basis-Claim cannot be disallowed under S. 35(1)(ii) as assessee did not claim weighted deduction. [S. 35(1) (ii)]

City Union Bank Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 74 ITR 644 (Chennai)(Trib. )

S. 36(1)(vii) : Bad debt–Provisions for bad and doubtful debts-Reduced from advance account in the balance sheet allowable as deduction to the extent of write off. [S. 36(1)(viia)]

Shree Laxmi Estate (P. ) Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 178 ITD 98/(2020) 204 TTJ 351 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital-Borrowings were utilized for purpose of construction business-No disallowances can be made.

Dy. CIT v. Sahara Care Ltd. (2019) 74 ITR 117 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 35D : Amortisation of preliminary expenses–Deduction granted earlier years – Deduction to be allowed for balance period.

Dy. CIT v. Macmillan Publishers India P. Ltd. (2019) 71 ITR 8 (SN) (Chennai)(Trib. )

S. 32 : Depreciation-Goodwill–Intangible Asset–Amalgamation–Matter remanded to CIT(A)]