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 — Advertising company — Purchase of Angles and channels was held to be allowable as deduction .

DCIT v. Vantage Advertising P. LTD. (2018) 61 ITR 564 (Kol) (Trib)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure — Commission crystallised relevant year , therefore allowable as deduction

DCIT v. Associated Pigments Ltd. (2018) 61 ITR 553 (Kol) (Trib)

S.37(1): Business expenditure — Contribution to staff welfare fund was held to be allowable expenditure.

ITO v. West Bengal Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (2018) 61 ITR 728 (Kol) (Trib)

S.37(1): Business expenditure -Discount on shares allotted by assessee to its employees under ESOP scheme out of its share capital is an allowable deduction .

DCIT v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (2018) 168 ITD 529 (Mum) (Trib.)

S.37(1): Business expenditure -Premium paid for Keyman Insurance was allowable in year in which premium was paid.

ACIT v. K.R. Kaviraj. (2018) 168 ITD 491 (Bang) (Trib.)

S.37(1): Business expenditure – Capital or revenue- Annual lease premium paid for acquiring mining rights on a land was capital expenditure.

ACIT v. K.R. Kaviraj. (2018) 168 ITD 491 (Bang) (Trib.)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure –Commission agents – Confirmation and tax was deducted at source- Disallowance on the basis of presumption was held to be not valid

ACIT v. Kiwifx Solutions. (2018) 61 ITR 780 (Ahd) (Trib)

S.37(1): Business expenditure — Capital or revenue-— Expenditure on issue of debentures was held to be allowable as revenue expenditure irrespective of nature of debenture.

CIT v. Modern Threads (I) Ltd. (2018) 400 ITR 381 (Raj) (HC) CIT v. Modern Syntex (2018) 400 ITR 381 (Raj) (HC)

S. 37(1):Business expenditure —Accrual- Enhancement of Licence fee payable to Railways in the year in which payment was issued .

CIT v. Jagdish Prasad Gupta. (2018) 400 ITR 583 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Capital or revenue -Non compete fee was held to be capital in nature

GKN Driveline India Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 252 Taxman 297 / 169 DTR 360(Delhi)(HC)