Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Universal Cables Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 213 ITD 428 (Kol) (Trib)

S. 43B : Deductions on actual payment-Leave encashment-Disallowed earlier years-Settled by filing an application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024-Allowable as a deduction on a payment basis. [S.43B(f)]

ITO v. Khetalaji Gold (P.) Ltd. (2025) 213 ITD 607 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 40A(2): Expenses or payments not deductible-Excessive or unreasonable-Gold and precious metals-lower authorities had neither referred to nor relied upon any objective market data to determine the fair value of purchases-Matter was remanded to the file of CIT (A) for fresh adjudication.[S. 40A(2)(a)]

ACIT v. Delhi Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (2025) 213 ITD 291 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Provision made for future expenditure-Matter remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification. [S. 145]

DCIT v. Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd. (2025) 213 ITD 453 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 40(a)(i): Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident –Royalty-Payments made towards internet, broadband and bandwidth charges to foreign parties did not constitute royalty-Not liable to deduct tax at source.[S.9(1)(vi), 195]

ACIT v. Matrix Publicities and Media India (P.) Ltd. (2025) 213 ITD 463 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident –Amount paid to a foreign company towards management fees-Tax deducted and deposited-No addition could be made under section 40(a)(i), or the payment can be held to be as unexplained expenditure under section 69C.[S, 69C, 195]

Bollineni Developers Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 213 ITD 635 (Hyd)(Trib.)

S.37(1): Business expenditure-Site maintenance expenditure-Ad-hoc disallowance of 30 per cent-Disallowance restricted to 10 percent of expenditure.

ACIT v. Matrix Publicities and Media India (P.) Ltd. (2025) 213 ITD 463 (Mum) (Trib.)

S.37(1): Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Licence fee for use of software-Allowable as revenue expenditure.

DCIT v. Aricent Technologies (Holding) (P.) Ltd. (2025) 213 ITD 378 (Delhi) (Trib)

S.37(1): Business expenditure-Setting up of business-Actual commencement of revenue-generating activity does not have any bearing on determining the date of setting up of business-Expenses incurred after the date of setting up of business are eligible for deduction. [S.28(i)]

ACIT v. Delhi Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (2025) 213 ITD 291 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure-Unrealised debtors-Write-off-Income offered in the subsequent years when realised-Order of CIT(A) deleting the addition was affirmed.

ITO v. Sutex Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2025) 213 ITD 359 (Surat) (Trib.)

S. 36(1)(viia): Bad debt-Provision for bad and doubtful debts-Schedule bank-A co-operative bank, eligible for deduction even if it had no rural branches-Long-term finance-Eligible for deduction under section 36(1)(viii).[S. 36(1)(vii)]