Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


ACIT v. Pavani Structurals (P.) Ltd. (2025) 211 ITD 415 (Hyd) (Trib.)

S.37(1): Business expenditure-Expenditure incurred on sale of commercial space-Payment was made by cheque-Order of CIT(A) deleting the addition is affirmed.

JIL Information Technology Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 211 ITD 277 (Lucknow) (Trib.)

S.37(1): Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Retainership fees to two foreign agents for marketing and business development-Allowable as revenue expenditure.

Rameshchandra Balachand. v. JCIT (OSD) (2025) 211 ITD 24 (Mum) (Trib.)

S.37(1): Business expenditure-Remuneration paid to partner-Maintenance of account-Allowable as deduction. [S. 153A]

DCIT v. Gulermak TPL Joint Venture. (2025) 211 ITD 349 (Mum) (Trib.)

S.37(1): Business expenditure-Fees for technical services to a foreign company for selection of suitable technical staff for project, review of contractual documents, etc-Allowable as business expenditure.

Aalap Digital Music (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 211 ITD 284 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S.37(1): Business expenditure-License fee-Commercial exploitation of music albums-Deferred revenue expenditure to be amortized over six-year period and not as prior period expenses-Matter remanded.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 211 ITD 608 (Mum) (Trib.)

S.37(1): Business expenditure-Broken period interest, i.e., interest accrued between last coupon date and date of purchase of government securities-Allowable as business expenditure.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 211 ITD 608 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Discount on issuance of ESOPs is an allowable business expenditure.

ACIT v. Karad Urban Co. Op. Bank Ltd. (2025) 211 ITD 717 (Pune) (Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Provision for depreciation on AFS securities-Debited to profit and loss account-Allowable as deduction.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 211 ITD 608 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 36(1)(viia) :Bad debt-Provision for bad and doubtful debts-Schedule bank-Provisions are made as per direction of RBI-Allowable as deduction.

Diebold Nixdorf India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2025) 211 ITD 377 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 36(1)(va): Any sum received from employees-Delayed payment of employee’s contribution towards PF and ESIC-Not allowable as deduction. [S. 37(1)]