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 – 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)

S. 37(1):Business expenditure — Expenditure in excess of 6 Per cent. of initial issue expenses of asset management company was held to be deductible. Expenditure relating to Information Technology Infrastructure was also held to be allowable . [Securities and Exchange Board of India (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996 R. 52 ]

CIT v. Ing Investment Management (India) P. Ltd. (2018) 401 ITR 405 (Bom) (HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure -Interest on overdue deposit on overdue deposits is ascertained liability hence allowable as deduction .

Oriental Bank of Commerce v. A CIT (2018) 401 ITR 65/ 162 DTR 257 /254 Taxman 197/ 304 CTR 363 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure –Capital or revenue – Membership fee paid to National Stock Exchange for procurement of permanent right in form of licence to carry on trade was held to be capital in nature .

Abhipra Capital Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 402 ITR 1/ 254 Taxman 19/ 164 DTR 250/ 303 CTR 534 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Expenditure on levelling of land was held to be allowable – Presumption applies only to the extent of documents seized [ S.132(4A ]

CIT v. Damac Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 401 ITR 495/253 Taxman 123 (Ker) (HC)

S. 36(1)(vii) :Bad debt -Amounts written off was held to be allowable as deduction.

ACIT v. Claridges Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (20180 61 ITR 135 (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 36(1)(vii): Bad debt -Amount written in books of account although the entry was back dated was held to be allowable as deduction .

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

S. 36(1)(iii): Interest on borrowed capital —Interest free fund was used for purchase of land and construction of godown hence interest paid on borrowed capital was held to be allowable .

DCIT v. Incite Homecare Products (P.) Ltd. (2018) 61 ITR 94 (Chd.) (Trib)

S. 36(1)(iii) :Interest on borrowed capital -Investment in subsidiaries- Nexus was established -Interest was held to be allowable deduction.

ACIT v. Chambal Fertilisers And Chemicals Limited. (2018) 61 ITR 33 (Jaipur) (Trib)

S. 36(1)(iii) :Interest on borrowed capital -Having its own capital at end of financial year relevant assessment year for advancing money for not charging interest , interest payment cannot be disallowed .

DCIT v. Narayani Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 61 ITR 371 (Kolk) (Trib)