Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Rainbow Promoters (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2022)95 ITR 232 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Additional payment to avoid litigation-Deduction not claimed-Disallowance is not warranted.

Sant Tukaram Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. ITO (2022)96 ITR 72 (SN) (Pune)(Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Diversion by overriding title-Matter remanded. [S. 40A(2)]

Sant Tukaram Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. ITO (2022)96 ITR 72 (SN)(Pune) (Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Ceremony expenses-Disallowance at 30 Per Cent is held to be justified.

M. D. Noorudin Zariwala v. CIT(Appeals) (2022) 96 ITR 43 (SN) (Mum) (Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Travelling expenses-Personal use-Disallowance of 20 Per Cent. for personal use is held to be justified.

M. D. Noorudin Zariwala v. CIT(Appeals) (2022) 96 ITR 43 (SN) (Mum) (Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Payment to Mosque for free lunch to Assessee’s employees-Mosque not under control of assessee-Free Lunch not provided exclusively to Labourers of assessee-Not allowable as deduction.

Welkin Telecom Infra (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022)96 ITR 475 (Kol) (Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Subscription paid to different committees and associations in local vicinity-Allowable as deduction-Excess amount paid as written off-Matter remanded.

City Corporation Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 96 ITR 246 (Pune) (Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Interest on debentures or compulsorily convertible debentures-Added to work in progress-Builder-Excess interest is required to be added back proportionately to total income as and when corresponding amount of work-in-progress reversed on sale of Flats/Plots [S. 145]

BGR Energy Systems Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 96 ITR 625 (Chennai) (Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Accrued or Contingent Liability-Provision for warranty-Ad-hoc basis-Not deductible.

Dy. CIT v. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd (No.1) (2022) 96 ITR 520 (Pune)(Trib) Dy. CIT v. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd (No.2) (2022) 96 ITR 566 (Pune)(Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Expenditure on rented premises-Not allowable as revenue expenditure. [S. 32]

Dy.CIT v. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd (No.1) (2022) 96 ITR 520 (Pune)(Trib) Dy. CIT v. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd (No.2) (2022) 96 ITR 566 (Pune)(Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Commission expenditure-Mere inability to furnish the confirmation letters from the parties commission payment cannot be disallowed.