{"id":60544,"date":"2026-06-08T13:00:32","date_gmt":"2026-06-08T07:30:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/pcit-v-remfry-and-sagar-2025-307-taxman-490-delhihc\/"},"modified":"2026-06-08T13:00:32","modified_gmt":"2026-06-08T07:30:32","slug":"pcit-v-remfry-and-sagar-2025-307-taxman-490-delhihc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/pcit-v-remfry-and-sagar-2025-307-taxman-490-delhihc\/","title":{"rendered":"PCIT v. Remfry and Sagar (2025) 307 Taxman 490 (Delhi)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Assessee, law firm claimed license fee paid for use of goodwill of one RRSCPL\u00a0 partnership firm. Assessing Officer disallowed the claim.\u00a0 Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee. On appeal, the Court held that\u00a0\u00a0 in assessee&#8217;s own case, High Court held that license fee paid by assessee, a law firm, to a partnership firm which was owner of goodwill, for use of goodwill in law firm was wholly and exclusively for business of assessee and thus, allowable as deduction under section 37(1). The appeal of revenue is dismissed. \u00a0\u00a0Assessee claimed travelling and entertainment expenses. Assessing Officer made an ad hoc disallowance of 5 per cent of total travelling and entertainment expenses. Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the disallowance on the ground that no discrepancy was pointed out in the books. Tribunal upheld deletion, observing that Assessing Officer had not disputed genuineness of expenses and ad hoc disallowance was made merely on assumptions and surmises without showing any evidence for personal use. Order of Tribunal affirmed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 37(1): Business expenditure-Licence fee-Use of goodwill-Travelling and entertainment expenses-Ad-hoc disallowance of 5 per cent-Provision for discount-Order of Tribunal deleting the disallowance is affirmed.[S. 260A] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-60544","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-fKw","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60544","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=60544"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60544\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":60545,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60544\/revisions\/60545"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60544"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60544"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60544"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}