Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Thiruvalla East Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 70 ITR 486 (Cochin) (Trib.)

S. 43B : Certain deductions on actual payment-Provision towards gratuity, leave salary, bonus and medical aid of retired staff-not necessary that actual payment had to be made-Deductible. [S. 40A(7)(b)(i)]

DCIT v. Terex India Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 71 ITR 259 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 43A : Rate of exchange-Foreign currency-Provisions are applicable for loss arising on foreign exchange fluctuations only where the capital assets are acquired from outside India-Assets were purchased in India-Loss on foreign exchange is allowable as deduction. [S. 37(1)]

ITO v. Team Front Line Ltd. (2019) 73 ITR 9 (Coch.)(Trib.)

S. 41(1) : Profits chargeable to tax-Remission or cessation of trading liability-waiver of loan taken by assessee for business purposes-amount returned to profit and loss account-Assessable as business income. [S. (24), 28(iv)]

ITO v. Eylex Films Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 71 ITR 332 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Payment to film distributors for purchase of films for exhibition-Not liable to deduct tax at source-No disallowances can be made. [S. 9(1)(vi), 194J]

Amit Jindal v. Dy. CIT (2019) 70 ITR 545 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Payments liable to deduction of tax at source-Brand charges-Whether recipient of brand charges paid taxes-Assessing officer to verify documents filed by assesse-Matter remanded.

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 71 ITR 301/ 179 ITD 78/( 2020) 196 DTR 349/ 208 TTJ 956 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Capital or revenue–Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (DTT) technology subscription-Payment for utilizing brand and technology not being made for acquiring any asset of enduring benefit should be allowed as a revenue expenditure.

Dy. CIT v. Albasta Wholesale Services Ltd (2019) 70 ITR 504 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure—Foreign exchange fluctuation loss—department accepting that assessee had commenced its business in earlier year—Denial of claim on reason that no business commenced for instant year not justified.

Tata Autocomp Hendrickson Suspensions Pvt. Ltd. v. DY. CIT (2019) 70 ITR 712 (Pune) (Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure—Provision for warranty-Not justified in disallowing the expenses.

Gold Finch Jewellery Ltd. v. DY. CIT (2019) 70 ITR 629 (Ahd.) (Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure—Labour charges—All details of labourers including addresses and permanent account numbers available with authorities but not verified—Assessee deducting tax at source from payment of labour charges to labourers—late deduction of tax at source—Not a basis for making disallowance.

Dy.CIT v. Metso Minerals (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 70 ITR 655 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure—Prior period expenditure— Invoice received and payment made in April 2009—Amount crystallized during year cannot be treated as prior period item.