Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. v. ACIT (2023)102 ITR 56 (SN) (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S.43B: Deductions on actual payment-Deduction allowed in the year in which the Assessee settles the outstanding electricity dues by way of payment out of the government grants, which is provided for the very purpose of aiding settlement.[S.145]

West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd. v.Dy. CIT (2023)102 ITR 453 (Kol)(Trib)

S.43B: Deductions on actual payment-Interest capitalised and not charged to profits-Work in progress-Disallowance could not be made. [S.37(1), 139(1)]

ACIT v. Privi Speciality Chemicals Ltd. (2023) 152 taxmann.com 105 / 102 ITR 1 (SN)/ 222 TTJ 367(Mum) (Trib)

S. 43A : Rate of exchange-Foreign currency-Accounting Standard-Reinstatement of accounts-Loss is not claimed in earlier years-Gains not taxable as income of year.[S. 45, 145]

Spicejet Ltd. v. Add. CIT (2023)102 ITR 58 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 40A(2) : Expenses or payments not deductible-Excessive or unreasonable-Rent paid for residential accommodation excessive in comparison to market rate-Assessing officer’s reliance on material obtained from internet unreliable-Deletion of addition by commissioner (appeals) upheld.

Om Sri Nilamadhab Builders (P) Ltd. v. ITO,(2023) 221 TTJ 21 (UO (Cuttack)(Trib)

S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Disallowance of business expenditure-Transport-Revision of order by the tribunal-Held amendment was done to remove hardship caused to the assessee-Amendment not clarificatory in nature.

Dy. CIT v. National Bank for Agriculture & Rural Development [2023] 221 TTJ 25/221 DTR 369 (Mum) (Trib)

S. 40(a)(ii): Amounts not deductible-Rates or tax-Education cess-Not allowable.

United Foods (P) Ltd. v. ACIT [2023] 221 TTJ 1/ 148 taxmann.com 452 (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure: Genuineness of job work charge-Produced formidable evidences to identify contractors as well as factum of incurring job work expenses, said expenses deserved to be allowed.[S.131(1)(d), 133(6), Order XVI, rule 19 of CPC, 1908]

Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 102 ITR 685 (Chennai) (Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Assessee, following a consistent method of accounting, has offered EIS to tax on proportionate basis as and when they have accrued over tenure of loan and same has been accepted by revenue-in accordance with RBI norms as well as AS-9-Therefore, keeping in view principle of prudence as well as rule of consistency, no fault could be found with accounting methodology adopted by assessee to recognize revenue under securitization transactions. [S. 145]

West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd. v.Dy. CIT (2023)102 ITR 453 (Kol)(Trib

S.37(1): Business expenditure Prior period expenditure-Expenditure crystallising only during relevant previous year when bills were received-Allowable as deduction-Provisions for expenses at end of previous year-Actually paid after end of previous year-Allowable as deduction-Contributions to provident Funds-Provision for gratuity-Government Provident Fund Established as Per Provident Funds Act, 1925-Allowable as deduction. [S. 36(1)(va) 40A(7) 145, Constitution, Art.12]

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (LTU) (2023)102 ITR 122 (Delhi)(Trib)

S.37(1): Business expenditure-Insurance business-Provisions on standard assets-Allowable as deduction.[S.44]