Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Knight Riders Sports P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2017) 51 CCH 591 / ( 2018) 193 TTJ 313 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure -Designing and exhibition of player outfits —Held to be revenue expenditure.

Knight Riders Sports P. Ltd v. ACIT (2017) 51 CCH 591 / (2018) 193 TTJ 313 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure -Security charges—visits of actors, celebrities and VIPs was part of strategic planning by assessee for generating higher revenues—Held to be allowable business expenditure.

Knight Riders Sports P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2017) 51 CCH 591 / ( 2018) 193 TTJ 313 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Coaching services–Held to be allowable as business expenditure.

Knight Riders Sports P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2017) 51 CCH 591 / (2018) 193 TTJ 313 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure -Security services for stadium—Payment of Rs. 75 lac was made by assessee to Kolkata Police Welfare fund, not by its choice, but as per directions of CAB who was responsible to arrange for security in stadium at time of staging of matches by assessee –Held to be allowable business expenditure.

Knight Riders Sports Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2017) 51 CCH 591 / (2018) 193 TTJ 313 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Capital or revenue-Franchise fee- For participation in league–Held to be revenue expenditure- When no match of IPL Season-2 was played till 31.03.2009, no expenditure in respect of Franchise fee accrued at all during year under consideration—Thus, it could not be held as revenue expenditure in hands of assessee during year under consideration [S. 145]

Scrabble Entertainment Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 169 DTR 51 / 193 TTJ 418 (Mum.) (Trib.)

S. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital-Advance to group concerns out of its own funds–Commercial needs-Disallowance of interest is held to be not justified.

Onprocess Technology India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 195 TTJ 292/(2019) 179 DTR 299 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 35DD : Amortisation of expenditure–Amalgamation–Demerger- Travelling expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for purpose of scheme of demerger is entitled for deduction.

Nutan Warehousing Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2018) 170 DTR 377 / 195 TTJ 919 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 28(i) : Business income–Income from house property- ware housing-Exploitation of commercial assets–Assessable as business income. [S. 22]

Morgan Stanley Investment Management (P) LTD. v. DCIT(2017) 160 DTR 19/ ( 2018) 191 TTJ 365 (Mum.) (Trib.)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – Sub-section (2) of section 14A does not authorize or empower AO to apply prescribed method irrespective of nature of claim made by assessee, AO has to first consider correctness of claim of assessee having regard to accounts of assessee. [R. 8D]

ACIT v. Scientific and Educational Advancement Society (2018) 196 TTJ 740/( 2019) 174 DTR 266 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes–Education-Accumulation- Section 11(1B) is not applicable where the assessee-society accumulated its income under section 11(2). [S.12AA]