This Digest of case laws is prepared by KSA Legal and AIFTP from judgements reported in BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib), Chamber's Journal, SOT, Taxman, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ, www.itatonline.org and other journals
Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Sales promotional expenses–Held to be allowable as business expenditure. [Medical Council (Professional Conducts, Etiquettes and Ethics) Regulation Act, 2002]

Aristo Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 178 ITD 147 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Pooja donation-Local entities–Charities-Allowable as business expenditure.

Dy. CIT v. Stewarts and Lloyds of India Ltd. (2019) 74 ITR 677 (Kol.) (Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Expenditure on issue of bonus shares-Held to be allowable as revenue expenditure.

Dy. CIT v. Sharda Cropchem Ltd. (2019) 178 DTR 83/ 71 ITR 141/199 TTJ 960 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Product registration expenses-Allowable as revenue expenditure.

Dy. CIT v. Sharda Cropchem Ltd. (2019) 178 DTR 83/ 71 ITR 141/199 TTJ 960 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Asset management company–Set up of business-Approval from SEBI–Expenditure is allowable though it had not actually commenced its business. [S. 2(13 )]

Dy. CIT v. PPFAS Asset Management P. Ltd. (2019) 72 ITR 41 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Capital or revenue-Software development services-AMP expenses towards Glow Sign Posts-Allowable as revenue expenditure.

Dy. CIT v. Oxigen Services India P. Ltd. (2019) 69 ITR 63 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib. )

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Leave encashment-Provision-Not allowable as deduction. [S. 43B(f)]

Dy. CIT v. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (2019) 70 ITR 5 (SN) (Chennai)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Contribution to recognized provident fund–Payment of pension to retired employees-As per scheme approved by the Government which had statutory force, hence, it would fall within the general deductions under S.37(1) and cannot be brought under S.36(1)(iv) and (v) of the Act [ S.36(1)(iv), 36(1) (v) ]

CIT. v. V. O. Chidambaranar Port Trust (2019) 311 CTR 227 / 180 DTR 329 / 266 Taxman 141 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Accounts—Rejection—Apportionment of proportionate expenditure between two units—Each of the expenses allocated by the assessee has been rightly reflected in the books of accounts of both the units—AO was not justified in computing profits of both the units on the basis of allocation of proportionate expenditures, in the ratio of their respective turnover to the combined turnover. [S. 10B(7), 145]

CIT. v. Mineral Enterprises Ltd (2019) 310 CTR 612 / 174 DTR 256 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Scientific research-The direction of the State Government for payment of contribution came just before the end of the financial year, entire expenditure is allowable on accrual basis-Claim cannot be disallowed under S. 35(1)(ii) as assessee did not claim weighted deduction. [S. 35(1) (ii)]

CIT. v. Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd. (2019) 179 DTR 161 (Mad)(HC)