Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Dy. CIT v. Daawat Foods Ltd. (2021) 91 ITR 110 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Amendment by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 limiting disallowance to 30 per cent. of sum payable-Cannot be applied to Assessment Year 2009-10-Disallowance sustained.

TVS Electronics Ltd. v ACIT (2021) 91 ITR 30 (SN) (Chennai)(Trib.)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident-Service rendered outside India-Fees for technical services-Not taxable in India-DTAA-India-Mauritius-Liability for tax deduction at source could not be fastened on basis of subsequent amendment to law with retrospective effect-Payment not liable to be disallowed for failure to deduct tax at source. [S. 9(1)(i), 9(1(vii), Art. 7, 22]

ACIT v. Subhatosh Majumder (2021) 200 DTR 113 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident-Fees for technical services-Professional fees paid for advocate to foreign attorneys in connection with IPR services-Directed to examine the taxability of provision with reference to DTAA-Payments were in the nature of pure reimbursement was not accepted. [S. 9(1)(vii)(b), 195]

DCIT v. Forum Homes (P.) Ltd. (2021) 91 ITR 38 (SN) / (2022) 192 ITD 184 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident Fes for technical services-Technical/consultancy services from three non-resident entities against certain fee-Not fees for technical services-Not liable to deduct tax at source-DTAA-India-Singapore. [S. 9(1)(vii), Art. 12(4)]

Walker Chandilok and Co. LLP v. ACIT (2021) 91 ITR 19 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Method of accounting-Cash system-Tax Deduction at source payables-Paid on due date-Disallowance is not justified. [S. 145]

Tejas Networks Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 91 ITR 52 (SN) (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Commission-Matching principle-Under agreement Commission shall accrue as and when sales finalised-Claim is allowable when sales are accounted. [S. 145]

DCIT v. Sakal Papers Ltd. (2021) 91 ITR 69 (SN) (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Additional wages paid in terms of Notification of Central Government-Allowable as deduction, though the payment was made in subsequent year. [S. 145]

ACIT v. Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 91 ITR 49 (SN) (Mum.) (Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Expenditure related to stock-in-trade to be allowed as revenue expenditure. [S. 2(14)(i)]

Anil Kumar Garg v. ITO (2021) 91 ITR 68 (SN) (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Ad hoc basis-Expenses relating to Telephone, Mobile, Vehicle Running and maintenance and depreciation on car-Lump sum disallowance of Rs. 20,000 purely on an ad hoc basis-Not sustainable.

Kushal Virendra Tandon v. CIT (2021) 91 ITR 610 / (2022) 215 TTJ 630 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Ad-hoc disallowance of 20 percent of expenses-Not sustainable.