Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Capgemini India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 99 ITR 506 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Credit card expenses of employee-Matter remanded for verification.

Altisource Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2022) 99 ITR 647 (Bang) (Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Capital or Revenue Expenditure-Payment for acquisition of application software-Revenue expenditure.

Allen Career Institute v. JCIT (2022) 99 ITR 269 (Jaipur) (Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Financial assistance to meritorious students-Not contingent-Allowable as deduction-Capital or revenue-Expenditure for new electricity connection and Meter cost-Internet networking expenses-Payment to Municipality for name transfer fee-allowable as revenue expenditure-Expenses incurred for extension of height of existing boundary wall-Capital expenditure-Fines and penalties-Expenses for regularisation of construction of old building-Penalty imposed by Urban Improvement Trust on account of unauthorised construction-Not allowable as business expenditure.[S. 145]

Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 99 ITR 325 (Bang) (Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Ex gratia payment-Deduction should be allowed although liability may have to be quantified and discharged at future date-Matter remanded. [S. 145]

Mahamedha Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 99 ITR 669 (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Expenditure is not substantiated with valid vouchers-Disallowance is affirmed.

ACIT v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd (As successor in business of eralt while, Vysya Bank Ltd (2022) 215 TTJ 409 /210 DTR 81 (Bang)(Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Application software-Net working with 125 branches-Allowable as revenue expenditure.

ACIT v. A.M. Ratnam (2022) 215 TTJ 665 / 210 DTR 1 (Chennai)(Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Post-production expenses of feature film-Producer and distributor-Allowable as business expenditure-Rule 9A or Rule 9B is not applicable. Reassessment on change of opinion is bad in law-Resale of set material-Estimated at 5 per cent of total cost incurred on such set materials. [S. 143(3), 147, 148 Rule, 9A, 9B]

Dy. CIT v. Manaksia Steels Ltd. (2022)99 ITR 12 (SN)(Kol) (Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Entertainment expenses Disallowance was restricted to 10%-Held to be proper-Transfer pricing adjustment deleted by the CIT(A) was affirmed [S. 92C]

Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 220 TTJ 409 (Pune) (Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Finance lease-Reclassified and claimed as deduction-Absence of details not allowed as deduction.

Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 220 TTJ 409 (Pune) (Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Taxes paid abroad-Taxes for which no benefit of foreign tax credit has been allowed-Allowable as deduction. [S. 40(a)(ii), 90, 91]