Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


DCIT v. Narayani Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 61 ITR 371 (Kol) (Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Interest for delay in making payment of Service tax and Tax deducted at source being compensatory in nature and not penalty in nature was held to be allowable deduction.

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 61 ITR 585 (Ctk) (Trib)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure —Subscriptions in the nature of annual membership was held to be allowable .

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 61 ITR 585 (Ctk) (Trib)

S. 37(1):Business expenditure — Capital or revenue -Development expenditure — Depreciation was held to be allowable at 10% and balance was held to be disallowable [ S. 32 ]

DCIT v. Vantage Advertising P. LTD. (2018) 61 ITR 564 (Kol) (Trib)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure — Advertising company — Purchase of Angles and channels was held to be allowable as deduction .

DCIT v. Associated Pigments Ltd. (2018) 61 ITR 553 (Kol) (Trib)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure — Commission crystallised relevant year , therefore allowable as deduction

ITO v. West Bengal Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (2018) 61 ITR 728 (Kol) (Trib)

S.37(1): Business expenditure — Contribution to staff welfare fund was held to be allowable expenditure.

DCIT v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (2018) 168 ITD 529 (Mum) (Trib.)

S.37(1): Business expenditure -Discount on shares allotted by assessee to its employees under ESOP scheme out of its share capital is an allowable deduction .

ACIT v. K.R. Kaviraj. (2018) 168 ITD 491 (Bang) (Trib.)

S.37(1): Business expenditure -Premium paid for Keyman Insurance was allowable in year in which premium was paid.

ACIT v. K.R. Kaviraj. (2018) 168 ITD 491 (Bang) (Trib.)

S.37(1): Business expenditure – Capital or revenue- Annual lease premium paid for acquiring mining rights on a land was capital expenditure.

ACIT v. Kiwifx Solutions. (2018) 61 ITR 780 (Ahd) (Trib)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure –Commission agents – Confirmation and tax was deducted at source- Disallowance on the basis of presumption was held to be not valid