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 – Foreign education and training expenses of a partner –Held to be allowable as business expenditure as the post graduate course underwent was directly related to profession carried on by firm – Professional fee received by firm had substantially increased after completion of post graduate degree by said partner, several important contracts were secured by firm, which firm attributed to educational qualification and expertise acquired by said partner abroad .
Aswathanarayana & Eswara v. Dy. CIT (2018) 258 Taxman 210 (Mad.)(HC)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure –Capital or revenue- Manufacture of PVC and caustic soda and business of shipping , starting textile business- Abandoned project – Manufacture of New venture was managed from common funds, control over all business units and there was unity of control, it could not be said that pre-operative expenditure was incurred on a new line of business- Held to be allowable as revenue expenditure.
Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 258 Taxman 297/ ( 2019) 412 ITR 323 (Mad.)(HC)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Sales incentive was payable only after and when dealers had met sales figures from 1-4-2003 to 30-06-2004 in this period – Expenditure cannot be disallowed on the ground that it pertaining to earlier year.[ S.145]
PCIT v. Escorts Ltd. (2018) 258 Taxman 402 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Provision for medical benefit of its employees post retirement –Held to be allowable.
CIT v. Eveready Industries (India) Ltd. (2018) 258 Taxman 313 (Cal.)(HC)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Provision for medical benefit of its employees post retirement –Held to be allowable.
CIT v. Eveready Industries (India) Ltd. (2018) 258 Taxman 313 (Cal.)(HC)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure –Security charges-merely for non filing of confirmation disallowances cannot be made-Order of Tribunal is affirmed .
CIT v. Eveready Industries (India) Ltd. (2018) 258 Taxman 313 (Cal.)(HC)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Capital or revenue- In view of fact that advanced technology software become obsolete within short intervals-Expenditure incurred on software expenses is held to be revenue expenditure.
CIT v. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. (2018) 258 Taxman 193/ 304 CTR 798/ 170 DTR 270 (Mad.)(HC)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure –Commission payments made to agents who procured orders and themselves were made liable to recover price of goods sold by them – Held to be allowable as deduction.
Landis + GYR Ltd. v. CIT (2017) 77 taxmann.com 253 (Cal) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is accepted ; CIT v. Landis + GYR Ltd. (2018) 258 Taxman 60 (SC)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Software development -Provision towards liability for warranty for goods supplied was not crystalised during relevant year and it was merely provisional in nature-Not allowable as deduction.[ S.145 ]
Laser Soft Infosystems Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 258 Taxman 308 (Mad.)(HC)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Salary paid to a sweeper for cleaning premises and hall which is in the name of founder of the company is held to be not allowable as deduction.
CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. (2018) 258 Taxman 238/( 2019) 410 ITR 423 (Ker.)(HC)