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 – 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)