Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Addl.CIT v. Quippo Oil & Gas Infrastructure Ltd. (Delhi) 201 ITD 47(Delhi)(Trib)

S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Contractors/sub-contractors-Obtained PAN of transporters-Mere violation of provisions of s. 194C(7) would not attract disallowance. [S. 194C(6), 194C(7), R. 31A(4)(vi)]

ACIT v Celltick Mobile (India) P. Ltd. (2023) 103 ITR 77 (SN)(Mum)(Trib)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident-Payment of licence fee to holding company-Assessee submitted Certificate from Chartered Accountant and return and computation of income of payee which Showed that payee had disclosed payment in its return and paid taxes thereon-Held, as per Indo-Israel DTAA Income in question not chargeable to tax in India in hands of Non-Resident-No disallowance can be made-DTAA-India-Israel.[S. 201]

Yamazen Machinery and Tools India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 200 ITD 205 / 107 ITR 113 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident-Fes for technical services-Reimbursement of expenses made by assessee to its parent company for salary paid to expatriate employees, was in nature of salary cost and was subjected to TDS under section 192, such reimbursement could not be treated as FTS-DTAA-India-Japan [S. 9(1)(vii),192,195, Art. 12]

DCIT v. H.K Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 103 ITR 12 (SN)(Ahd)(Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Autorised capital-Depreciation cannot be claimed on expenditure incurred towards increase in authorized share capital.[S. 32]

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2023) 103 ITR 67 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Expenditure incurred on ice boxes being made for acquiring or bringing into existence an asset for enduring benefit of business was of capital nature.

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2023) 103 ITR 67 (SN)(Delhi)(Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Explanation 2, disallowing CSR expenditure is not retrospective in nature.

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2023) 103 ITR 67 (SN)(Delhi)(Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Non-compete fee being a capital expenditure resulting in enduring benefit cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure.

Dy. CIT v. Asian Star Co. Ltd. (2023) 154 taxmann.com 13 /104 ITR 639 (Mum) (Trib)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure-Income from undisclosed sources-Bogus purchases-Expenditure on commission paid-Allowable as deduction. [S. 133(6), Prohibition of Benami property Transactions Act, 1988, S. 24]

Lokhandwala Kataria Construction Pvt. Ltd. v DCIT (2023)104 ITR 84 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Bogus Purchases-Information received from investigation wing Entire bogus purchase cannot be added-Addition restricted to 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases-Insurance premium of director paid by Company-Not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business-Not allowable as deduction. [S. 133(6)]

Lear Automotive India P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2023)105 ITR 4 (SN)(Pune)(Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Joint Venture-Payment towards engineering and development cost each year dependent upon volume of production. Intellectual property rights remaining with companies, Payment not resulting in intangible asset capable of capitalization, said payment for use of technology revenue in nature.