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 promotion expenses- supply of certain products free of cost to Government hospitals and other hospitals in pursuance of purchase order placed by such hospitals- Allowable as business expenditure – Circular No 5/2012 dt. 1-8-2012 (2012) 346 ITR 95 (St) is prospective in nature .
DCIT v. Esaote India (NS) Ltd. (2018) 172 ITD 299/ 172 DTR 427/ 196 TTJ 1091 (Ahd) (Trib.)
S.37(1): Business expenditure- Insurance premiums of employees’ family members in terms of employment rules framed by assessee-company –Allowable as business expenditure. [ S.17 (2)(iv) ]
Loesche India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 172 ITD 176 / 195 TTJ 33 (UR)(Delhi) (Trib.)
S.37(1):Business expenditure- Service charges paid to SRSR Advisory Services Pvt Ltd for advisory services in assessee business area, accounting services, collection of interest and dividend, taxation, ROC related matters and maintenance of its land properties etc.- Allowable as business expenditure .
Fincity Investments (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 172 ITD 204/ 172 DTR 396 (Hyd) (Trib.) Veeyes Investments ( P) Ltd v. ACIT ( 2018) 172 ITD 218 /( 2019) 197 TTJ 261/ 175 DTR 109(Hyd) (Trib)
S.37(1): Business expenditure – Payment of Rs. 20000/ made as per direction of Inspector of Legal Metrology as compensation/damages to avoid any future litigation – Allowable as business expenditure.
Ocean Agro (India) Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 172 ITD 157 (Ahd) (Trib.)
S.37(1): Business expenditure – Commercial expediency -Business man’s point of view – Service charges were paid to company SRSR for providing advisory services in assessee’s business area, accounting services, collection of interest and dividend, taxation, ROC related matters and maintenance of its land, properties, etc -There being no dispute that services was rendered to assessee, Assessing Officer cannot step into shoes of assessee to-re fix amount that should have been paid . S. 37(1) does not have any restriction to amount paid so long expenditure is incurred for business.
Elem Investments (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 172 ITD 58 (Hyd) (Trib.)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Foreign exchange fluctuation loss- Advance of loan to Indian Permanent Establishment – loss is allowable as deduction – DTAA- India -Spain [S.9(1)(i), art .7 ]
Cobra Instalaciones Y Servicios SA v. DCIT (2018) 65 ITR 714 / 172 ITD 18/ 171 DTR 198 / 195 TTJ 1038(Delhi) (Trib.)
S. 28(iv) : Business income – Value of any benefit or perquisites – Converted in to money or not –Non compete fee-Capital or revenue-Compensation of Rs 40 crores for discontinuing commodity trading business-Commodity trading was transferred entirely to its group concern without there being any impairment to business/profit making apparatus of assessee-company-Taxable as business – However when there was no principal and agent relationship between assessee and parent company, compensation received by assessee for discontinuing commodity trading was not from parent company and was not in lieu of surrender of any agency, compensation did not fall within ambit of taxation under section 28(ii)(c) [ S.28(ii)(c )
Geojit Investment Services Ltd. v. JCIT (2018) 172 ITD 279 / 196 TTJ 837/ 67 ITR 156 (Cochin) (Trib.)
S. 36(1)(va): Any sum received from employees – Employees’ contribution to PF and ESIC – Amounts not deposited in relevant fund before due date as prescribed in Explanation to section 36(1)(va)- No deduction is allowable even though same was deposited before due date as stipulated under section 43B of the Act. [ S.43B , 139(1) ]
Ocean Agro (India) Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 172 ITD 157 (Ahd) (Trib.)
S. 36(1)(iii) :Interest on borrowed capital -Business expenditure -Advance to subsidiary companies out of borrowed funds who further gave said advances to SPVs of assessee who utilised for carrying on business activities of construction and development of airports – No business activities under taken – Expenditure incurred on finance charges is held to be not allowable as deduction- there is evidence of nexus of borrowing funds being invested in sister concern and assessee sources of income can only be earning dividend income, the entire interest income has to be considered for disallowance under section 14A under rule 8D2(i)/(ii) for the impugned assessment year. [ S.14A, 37(1),R.8D(1)(ii) ]
GVK Airport Developers Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 172 ITD 109/ 195 TTJ 246 / 66 ITR 9 (SN)/ 169 DTR 209 (Hyd) (Trib.)
S.28(i):Business loss- Value of shares held as stock- Devalued in books to evade tax – Claim being notional loss not allowable as business loss [ S.145 ]
Elem Investments (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 172 ITD 58 (Hyd) (Trib.)