S. 54F : Capital gains – Investment in a residential house – Exemption cannot be denied on the ground that residential building was used for business purpose [ S.54 ]
Dy. CIT v. Subramanian (A. M.) (2018) 63 ITR 24 (SN.) (Chennai) (Trib.)S. 54F : Capital gains – Investment in a residential house – Exemption cannot be denied on the ground that residential building was used for business purpose [ S.54 ]
Dy. CIT v. Subramanian (A. M.) (2018) 63 ITR 24 (SN.) (Chennai) (Trib.)S. 45 : Capital gains – business income – Trading in shares – Held, in earlier years the same was assessed as capital gains in scrutiny assessments – Held, period of holding and receipt of dividend were not decisive factors – Held, to be assessed as capital gains. [S.28(i)]
Eastman Industries Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 63 ITR 181 (Delhi) (Trib.)S. 44C : Non-residents – Head office expenditure – salary paid to expatriates who were stationed in India working exclusively for the business operations of the Indian PE of the assessee – Held allowance and that provision of S.44C is not applicable.
Dy. DIT (IT) v. Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, UFG Ltd. (2018) 61 ITR 272 (Delhi)(Trib.)S. 44BB : Mineral oils – Computation – Hiring of ships by Indian Companies used in connection with extraction of oil – Held, 44BB to prevail over section 44B, being more specific – Held, service tax being in the nature of a statutory payment cannot be included in the gross receipts for the purpose of computing the presumptive income u/s. 44BB [ S.44B ]
DIT (IT) v. Swiwar Offshore Pte. Ltd. (2018) 167 DTR 341 / 193 TTJ 951 (Mum.)(Trib.)S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source -Non-resident – Interest – Royalty – Fes for technical services – foreign agency commission – services rendered outside India – Held, no tax to be deducted at source – Held, no disallowance can be made. [S. 195]
Dy. CIT v. Sterling Ornament (P.) Ltd. (2018) 65 ITR 492 (Delhi)(Trib.)S. 37(1) – Business expenditure –Commission to directors against personal guarantee – Matter remitted to the AO to verify whether as per the bank documentation, director eligible for commission.
Eastman Industries Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 63 ITR 181 (Delhi) (Trib.)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Capital or revenue-Royalty paid in the nature of spectrum charges to Government of India as a percentage of revenue on regular basis – Also, license fee paid for telecommunication services to Government of India based on revenue share and on regular basis – Held, both are revenue expenditure – S. 35ABB is not applicable.[S.35ABB]
Dy. CIT v. Vodafone Essar Digilink Ltd. (2018) 193 TTJ 150 / 64 ITR 392/ 170 ITD 430 / 166 DTR 233 (Delhi)(Trib.)S. 37(1): Business expenditure – Compounding fees paid to RBI for post-facto approval from FIPB – Held, amount compensatory in nature and therefore, allowable as deduction. [Expln.]
Dy. CIT v. Sodexo Food Solutions India P. Ltd. (2018) 66 ITR 52 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.).S. 37(1): Business expenditure –Capital or revenue- Expenses on renovation and refurbishing of a leased property – Held, expenses incurred to facilitate carrying out of catering / canteen services at the leased premises and formed integral part of profit earning process of assessee’s business – Held, revenue expenditure.
Dy. CIT v. Sodexo Food Solutions India P. Ltd. (2018) 66 ITR 52 (SN)(Mum.)(Trib.)36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital – Interest in share capital of other companies – Held, for business purpose therefore, no disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii). Such investment as well as such interest cannot be considered for computing disallowance u/s. 14A. [S. 14A, R. 8D(2)(ii)]
CIT v. VBC Ferro Alloys Limited (2018) 63 ITR 633 (Hyd.)(Trib.)