Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2010 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (7) TMI 643 - ITAT, MUMBAIDisallowance - The assessee claimed that the expenditure on the clubs is merely for the promotion of the business - Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Samtel Color Ltd (180 Taxman 82(Del) - Held that for qualifying of the deduction u/s 37 is that expenditure incurred should not be on capital account and it should be incurred for the purpose of the business - Accordingly decided in the favour of the assessee Regarding addition on account of debts’ become time barred under the Limitation Act - No such condition is there in sec. 41(1) for considering the cessation of any liability and in respect of any expenditure, even if within the period of limitation of three years, the assessee unilaterally write off the liability within one year then also the provision of sec. 41(1) is applicable - Decided in the favour of the assessee Deduction u/s 80IB - The ITAT in AY 2001-02 had examined the years in which the borrowing had been made and year of setting up of qualifying units and found that no borrowing had been made after the setting up of the qualifying units and therefore held that no allocation of fresh borrowing was to be made to the 80IB qualifying units - Accordingly the addition is deleted Regarding deduction u/s 80HHC - High Court in the case of Godrej Agrovet Ltd vs ACIT & others (2007 -TMI - 13282 - BOMBAY High Court) - Decided in the favour of the assessee Regarding addition u/s 92CA - Arms length price - TNMM requires comparison of net profit margins realised by an enterprise from an international transaction or an aggregate of international transactions and not comparisons of operating margins of enterprises - Tribunal in the case of UCB India P. Ltd. vs. ACIT 121 ITD 131 (Mum.) - Decided in the favour of the assessee by way of remand Regarding book profit u/s 115JB and added back the profit for doubtful debts of Rs. 1,49,80,000 - the provision for bad debts is not the liability; but it is diminution in the value of the assets as the recoverable debts partake the character of the asset - Decided against the assessee The sums clamed in P&L A./c by the assesee are ascertained liability, therefore, they are out of purview of clause (c) of sec. 115JB of the Act - Decided in the favour of the assessee by way of remand
|