S. 37(4) : Business expenditure-Guest house expenses-Held to be not allowable.
Standard Chartered Bank. v. JCIT (2019) 177 ITD 139 / 200 TTJ 774/ 178 DTR 201(Mum.) (Trib.)S. 37(4) : Business expenditure-Guest house expenses-Held to be not allowable.
Standard Chartered Bank. v. JCIT (2019) 177 ITD 139 / 200 TTJ 774/ 178 DTR 201(Mum.) (Trib.)S. 45 : Capital gains-Sale of shares-Entry operator-Bogus long term capital gains- Produced sufficient material-Addition cannot be made as cash credits. [S. 10(38), 68]
Sangita Jhunjhunwala (Smt.) v. ITO (2019) 70 ITR 247 (Kol.) (Trib.)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Expenditure incurred on earning on term deposit is allowable as deduction.
Ashwin S. Mehta v. ACIT (2019) 70 ITR 234 (Mum.)(Trib.)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Illegal expenses-Distribution of ball pens, medical gifts etc. with logo of the company to doctors and hospitals–Allowable as business expenditure-Explanation 1 to S. 37(1) is not applicable.
Aishika Pharma (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 177 ITD 238 (Delhi)(Trib.)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Interest bearing loans–Charged interest at 9% – Disallowance of interest at 12% is held to be not justified. [S. 36(1)(iii)]
Alkoplus Producers (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 177 ITD 150 / 71 ITR 650/ 181 DTR 329/ 201 TTJ 893 (Pune)(Trib.)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Commission-ad hoc disallowance of 50% – Furnished details of payment-Ad-hoc disallowance is held to be not justified.
Alkoplus Producers (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 177 ITD 150 / 71 ITR 650/181 DTR 329 /201 TTJ 893 (Pune) (Trib.)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Illegal payments-Fee paid for registration of product in Iraq- Cannot be said to be payment of kickbacks to Iraqi regime for doing business-Allowable as deduction.
DCIT v. Core Healthcare Ltd. (2019) 177 ITD 26 (Ahd) (Trib.)S. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital-Interest free loan to subsidiary from interest bearing funds- Proportionate interest payment is disallowable.
DCIT v. Core Healthcare Ltd. (2019) 177 ITD 26 (Ahd.)(Trib.)S. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital–Provision for interest liability–Held to be allowable as deduction-Rule of consistency- It is not open to revenue to accept a judgment in the case of one assessee, and appeal, against the identical judgment in the case of another. It was held that such a differential treatment on the same set of facts was not permissible in law. [S. 43B]
DCIT v. Core Healthcare Ltd. (2019) 177 ITD 26 (Ahd.)(Trib.)S. 32 : Depreciation-Investment depreciation reserve-co-operative society-Bound by the Reserve Bank of India directives-Business of banking-Matter remanded.
Ahmedabad District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 70 ITR 428 (Ahd.)(Trib.)