Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Sasson J. David Co P. Ltd v. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 261/10 CTR 383/1 Taxman 485 (SC)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure – Termination of services of directors and employees to facilitate take over – Retrenchment compensation an allowable deduction — “Wholly and exclusively” does not mean “necessarily” — Benefit to third party irrelevant [Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922 S. 10(2)(xv)]

CIT v. Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd. (2009) 312 ITR 254/179 Taxman 326/21 DTR 106/223 CTR 1/213 Taxation 195/13 SCC 1 (SC)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure – Foreign exchange fluctuation loss as on the balance sheet – Allowable as an expenditure. [S. 43A, 145]

Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works v. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 640/280 CTR 521/126 DTR 233 (SC)

S.37(1) : Business expenditure – Legal expenses incurred for protecting the business of the firm – Held to be allowable business expenditure – Held, finding of fact by the Tribunal cannot be disturbed unless it found to be perverse.

Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co Ltd v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC) (367)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Method of accounting – Entries in the books of account cannot decide whether a receipt is taxable or not or whether expenses are allowable as deduction or not – Courts are compelled to go by the true nature of the receipts and not go by the entries in the books of account – Once a liability to pay has accrued during the assessment year deduction can be allowed even though it had to be discharged at a future date – Even if the assessee disputes the liability to pay sales tax by filing an appeal, once the demand for payment has been received, the said amount can be claimed as a deduction. [ S. 28(1), 37(1) , 145, Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, S. 10(2)(xv)]

T. R. F. Ltd. v. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397/190 Taxman 391/35 DTR 156/(2011) 220 Taxation 88 (SC)

S.36(1)(vii): Bad debt – Mere write off is sufficient for claiming deduction of bad debt– Held, Yes Subsequent to 01/04.1989, no requirement to establish that the debt has become irrecoverable.

Taparia Tools Ltd. v. JCIT (2015) 372 ITR 605/276 CTR 1/231 Taxman 5 (SC)/ 177 CTR 33 (SC)

S.36(1)(iii): Interest on borrowed capital – Upfront interest paid – Interest on debentures – Allowable in the first year or to be spread over a period of five years – Method of accounting – Held, entire expenditure to be allowed in the year in which interest expenditure is incurred and paid – Held, treatment in the books of account not determinative –Matching concept not to be applied in such a case [S. 35D, 37(1), 43, 145]

CIT (LTU) v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 466/175 DTR 1/307 CTR 121/261 Taxman 164 (SC)

S. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital- Interest free loans and advances given to subsidiary – Interest-free funds available with assessee are sufficient to meet investment/ advances – Presumption is that investments in subsidiaries were out of interest free funds – No disallowance can be made under section 14A. [S. 14A]

Dy. CIT v. Raghuvir Synthetics Ltd (2017) 394 ITR 1/151 DTR 153/295 CTR 143/247 Taxman 393 (SC)

S. 35D: Amortisation of preliminary expenses – Capital or revenue – Expenditure incurred on public issue of shares is revenue or capital expenditure – Debatable issue – Judgement of jurisdictional High Court on the issue – Issue cannot be said to be debatable – Held, issue can be considered in proceedings under section 143(1) of the Act.

Prashanti Medical Service & Research Foundation v. UOI (2019) 416 ITR 485/180 DTR 209/309 CTR 457/265 Taxman 504 (SC)

S. 35AC : Expenditure on eligible projects-Schemes–Promissory estoppel is not available to an assessee against the exercise of legislative power nor any vested right accrues to an assessee in the matter of grant of any tax concession to him-In a taxing statute, a plea based on equity or/and hardship is not legally sustainable-Withdrawal of exemption is valid. S. 35AC(7) is prospective in nature-Provision is valid in law. [S. 35AC(7), Art. 142, 226]

CIT v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 1/165 DTR 337/302 CTR 213/255 Taxman 305 (SC) CIT v. Dholgiri Industries (P) Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 1/165 DTR 337/302 CTR 213/255 Taxman 305 (SC) CIT v. Jindal Equipments Leasing & Consultancy Services Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 1/165 DTR 337/302 CTR 213/255 Taxman 305 (SC) CIT v. Ramaniyam Homes (P) Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 1/165 DTR 337/302 CTR 213/255 Taxman 305 (SC)

S. 28(iv): Business income – Waiver of loan – Remission or cessation of trading liability – S. 28(iv) does not apply if the receipts are in the nature of cash or money; but will apply if the benefits are received in some other form – Loan waiver amounts to benefit/ receipt in the form of cash – Held, waiver of loan cannot be assessed u/s 28(iv) of the Act.

S. 41(1) : Profits chargeable to tax – Remission or cessation of trading liability – Waiver of loan – Section 41(1) apply to a trading liability; in respect of which either an allowance or deduction is claimed by the assessee –Loan is not a trading liability and no deduction is claimed in respect of the interest expense – Held, no addition can be made u/s 41(1) of the Act in respect of waiver of loan. [S. 4, 36(1)(iii), 28(iv)]