S. 37(1) : Business expenditure -Corporate entity – even if no business was carried out during the year, expenditure incurred by it has to be allowed.
Ozoneland Agro Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2018)53 CCH 427 / 64 ITR 6 (SN)(Mum)(Trib.)www.itatonline.orgS. 37(1) : Business expenditure -Corporate entity – even if no business was carried out during the year, expenditure incurred by it has to be allowed.
Ozoneland Agro Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2018)53 CCH 427 / 64 ITR 6 (SN)(Mum)(Trib.)www.itatonline.orgS. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital – AO cannot step into the shoes of the businessmen – Interest is allowable on borrowed funds used for the purpose of business.
DCIT v. Rajendra Bansilal Raisoni (2018) 66 ITR 655 / 53 CCH 606(Pune)(Trib.)S. 32 : Depreciation – Injection moulding machine falls under the category of ‘Moulds’ and therefore shall qualify for higher rate of depreciation.
DCIT v SB Packaging Ltd. (2018) 63 ITR 569 / 52 CCH 511 (Delhi)(Trib.)S. 32 : Depreciation – Depreciation is allowable non-compete territory rights – Department’s action of not filing an appeal against the CIT(A) favourable order in earlier year gives finality to the dispute.
DCIT v. Rasna Pvt Ltd (2018) 66 ITR 577 /53 CCH 0585 (Ahd.)(Trib.)S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – No automatic disallowance can be made[ R.8D].
Siddhesh Capital Market Service v DCIT (2018) 52 CCH 003 (Mum.)(Trib.)S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income -Disallowance has to be made where the assessee cannot furnish any evidence to prove that the investments were made in earlier years.[ R. 8D]
Dy.CIT v. Rasna Pvt Ltd. ( No 2) (2018) 66 ITR 689 (Ahd.)(Trib.)S. 10AA: Special economic zones -Assessee manufacturing different items in different units – No dispute about unit wise profitability declared by assesse – Remand report accepting cost of goods were reconciled – Addition made by AO to be deleted.
Dy.CIT v. Phoenix Lamps Ltd (2018)64 ITR 466/ 52 CCH 0576 (Delhi)(Trib.)S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Royalty – Consideration paid for copyrighted article is not royalty and hence cannot be brought to tax either under Act or under DTAA
Qualcomm Incorporated v. DDIT (2018) 65 ITR 248/52 CCH 0338 (Delhi) (Trib.)S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Royalty – Royalty income of assessee earned from OEMs situated outside India for the patents licensed to OEMs for manufacture of CDMA Network outside India was not chargeable to tax u/s 9(1)(vi)(c) .
Qualcomm Incorporated v. DDIT (2018) 65 ITR 248/ 52 CCH 0338 (Delhi) (Trib.)S. 4: Charge of income-tax –Capital or revenue -Entertainment subsidy received under Uttar Pradesh Government scheme for promotion of construction of multiplexes is a capital receipt.[S.2(24)]
DCIT v. Shipra Hotels Ltd (2018) 63 ITR 70 (SN) 52 CCH 0288 (Delhi)(Trib.)