Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Marvelore Mining & Allied Industries (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2023) 198 ITD 629 (Surat) (Trib.)

S. 41(1) : Profits chargeable to tax-Remission or cessation of trading liability-liability of sundry creditor-Capital asset-Capital expenditure-Neither put to use nor claimed depreciation-Addition cannot be made.

Monika Chitrasen Patil. (Mrs.) v. ITO (2023) 198 ITD 508 (SMC) (Pune) (Trib.)

S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible-Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits-Purchase of land-Payment of cash on demand by seller-Seller admitted the receipt of cash-Disallowance is deleted. [R.6DD]

C G Housing Company. v. ITO (2023) 198 ITD 42 (Raipur) (Trib.)

S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible-Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits-Real estate developer-Purchase of land as capital asset-Commercially exploited later as stock in trade-Provision of section 40A(3) cannot be applied.[S. 45(2)]

Sunsmart Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 198 ITD 347 / 222 TTJ 893(Chennai) (Trib.)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident-Fes for technical services-Sales support service-Located in Dubai-Marketing of products-Train resources of marketing partner to provide pre-sale and after sale product services to customers-Fees for technical services-Liable to deduct tax at source-Disallowance is justified.[S.9(1)(vii), 195]

Steller Films (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 198 ITD 682 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Business of cinema photographic films, Legal fees-Dispute of film-Allowable as deduction whether the film would release or not would be irrelevant-Abandoned project-Service charges paid to a marketing company related to a film-film which was subsequently abandoned and never released-Allowable as business loss-Interest expenditure-Project abandoned-Capital or revenue-Allowable as deduction[S. 28(i), 36(1)(iii ) Rule 9A]

CLP Wind Farm (India) Ltd. v. DCIT (2023) 198 ITD 690 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S.37(1): Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Premium paid on foreign exchange forward contracts-Amortized as revenue expenditure over life of contract. [Accounting Standard (AS)-11]

Well Wisher Construction (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2023) 198 ITD 268 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Foreign travel expenses-Business of real estate development and construction-To understand global trend of business-Business man point of view-Travel expenditure-Ad-hoc disallowance of 25 percent is not Sales promotion expenses-Allowed as deduction.

Suresh Electricals. v. DCIT (2023) 198 ITD 487 (Bang) (Trib.)

S. 36(1)(va): Any sum received from employees–Any failure to pay employee’s contribution to PF/ESI, within prescribed due date under respective Act or scheme will result in negating employer’s claim for deduction permanently forever under section 36(1)(va).[S.43B (b)]

Geekay Facility Management (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2023) 198 ITD 13 (Mum) (Trib.) Jabalpur Motors Ltd. v. ADCIT (2023) 198 ITD 528 (Jabalpur) (Trib.)

S. 36(1)(va): Any sum received from employees-Paid before due date of filing of return-Allowable as deduction-Explanation to section 43B by Finance Act, 2021 was only prospective and not retrospective. [S. 43B, 139(1)]

Samira Constructions (India) Ltd. v. DCIT (2023) 198 ITD 264 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 36(1)(iii) :Interest on borrowed capital-Own funds-Advance of loan-Assessing Officer is directed to work out figure of interest disallowance considering figure of assessee’s own fund.