Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Jt. CIT (OSD) v. Intertek India Pvt. Ltd. (2022)99 ITR 54 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident-Managerial services charges paid to Non-Residents not Liable to tax at source-Disallowance is not justified-Expenditure on management services-Allowable as business expenditure. [S. 195]

Dy. CIT v. Hyderabad Educational Institutions (P) Ltd (2022) 218 TTJ 487 (Hyd)(Trib)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident-Fees for technical services-Examination fees from students-Foreign Universities-Directly remitted to the Universities-Not to be treated as technical services-Not liable to deduct tax at source-DTAA-India-UK-Switzerland. [S. 9(1)(vi), 90, 195, Art. 13]

Toyota Boshoku Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2022)98 ITR 363 (Bang) (Trib)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident-Reimbursing salary of expatriates to foreign companies-not a fee for technical services-Disallowance not justified. [S. 9(1)(vii), 195]

Dy. CIT v. Alpha Laborities (P) Ltd. (2022) 217 TTJ 1(UO) / 140 taxmann.com 16 (Indore)(Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Commission-Consignment agents-Government departments-Allowable as deduction. [S. 147, 148]

Srimaan Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2022) 213 DTR 105 / 217 TTJ 120 (Hyd.)(Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Coal handling charges-Matter remanded-Delay of 1234 days in filing the appeal was condoned. [S. 40(a)(ia) 254(1)]

Akik Tiles Pvt Ltd. v. JCIT (2022) 95 ITR 77 (SN)(Ahd)(Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Commission payment-Consultancy charges-TDS was deducted-Payment by account cheque-Failure to provide the nature of service rendered-Disallowance of payment was affirmed.

Dy. CIT v. Ganges International P. L td (2022) 95 ITR 161Chennai) (Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Commission-Documents produced-Direct nexus between commission paid and income generated-Even in the absence of any agreement with the commission agent, simply introducing or referring potential customers the commission payment is allowable as deduction.

SKF Engineering and Lubrication India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 95 ITR 24 (Bang)(Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Product development expenses-Allowable as revenue expenditure-Provision for customer claims-Matter restored to Assessing Officer to examine claim in accordance with principles laid down by Supreme Court-Provision for bad and doubtful debts–Matter restored to Assessing Officer.

Bharat Fritz Wermer Ltd v. Dy.CIT (2022) 95 ITR 507 (Bang) (Trib)

S .37(1) : Business expenditure-Short fall in inventory written off-Allowable as deduction-Purchase of tools allowable as revenue expenditure-Provision for warranty-Allowable as deduction-Lability for erection and commissioning placed upon shoulders of assessee-Provision at rate of one per cent. to three per cent. determined on basis of past experience-Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer. [S. 28(1)]

VRL Logistics Ltd. v. ACIT (2022)95 ITR 221 (Bang)(Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Prior period expenses-Payments were made when actual bills received after crystallisation of expenditure-Allowable as deduction. [S. 145]