S.37(1):Business expenditure – Capital or revenue – Renovation of leased office premises is revenue expenses allowable [S.31]
Genesisi Datacomp P. Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 63 ITR 699 (Mum.)(Trib.)S.37(1):Business expenditure – Capital or revenue – Renovation of leased office premises is revenue expenses allowable [S.31]
Genesisi Datacomp P. Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 63 ITR 699 (Mum.)(Trib.)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Discount and commission – In absence of full details, entire payment cannot be allowed – cash discount of 1% to keep the buyer in good humor allowable in the interest of justice.
Purnima Sahoo (Smt.) v. ITO (2018) 62 ITR 54 (Cuttack)(Trib.)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Corporate social responsibility – peripheral development expenses and community development expenses allowable.
Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (OSD) (2018) 62 ITR 696 (Visakha)(Trib.)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Accrued or contingent liability – provision towards expenditure for closure of mines being merely a statutory provision relating to operation of mine, no deduction for proportionate expenditure to the period for which mines operated allowable.
Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (OSD) (2018) 62 ITR 696 (Visakha)(Trib.)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Accrued or contingent liability – provision for post- retirement medical benefits, future encashment leave and long service award based on actuarial valuation is allowable.
Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (OSD) (2018) 62 ITR 696 (Visakha)(Trib.)S.11: Property held for charitable purposes -Accumulation of income — Allowable at fifteen per cent. on gross receipts
Green Wood High Trust v. ACIT(E) (2018) 62 ITR 264 (Bang.)(Trib.)S. 2(22)(e):Deemed dividend- account showing movement of funds both ways between a debtor and a creditor – Held, current account transaction and therefore, S. 2(22)(e) would not apply.
Ravindra R. Fotedar v. ACIT (2018) 192 TTJ 938 (Mum.)(Trib.)S. 271AAA : Penalty – Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007 – Levy of penalty at the rate of 10% of the undisclosed income to be imposed only in respect of ‘specified previous year’ – The CIT(A) restricted penalty without examining ‘Specified Previous Year’, matter was set aside to AO for fresh consideration in light of explanation(b) S.271AAA.
ACIT v. Nirmal Gupta (2018) 62 ITR 663 (Delhi) ( Trib.)S.271AAA : Penalty – Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007 – Assessee has to specify and substantiate manner of income, has been derived in its statement recorded u/s. 132(4) and not thereafter- Levy of penalty is justified . [ S.132(4) ]
ACIT v. SSA International Ltd. (2018) 171 ITD 287 (Delhi)(Trib.)S.271AAA : Penalty – Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007 – Assessee has to specify and substantiate manner of income, has been derived in its statement recorded u/s. 132(4) and not thereafter- Levy of penalty is justified . [ S.132(4) ]
ACIT v. SSA International Ltd. (2018) 171 ITD 287 (Delhi)(Trib.)