Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 593 - AT - Income TaxNature of expenditure - major repairs, renovations re-furbishing the premises / project site - revenue or capital expenditure - Held that:- Although the benefit of the stated expenditure may have been derived by the assessee for more than one year but as already noted, there is no concept of deferred revenue expenditure under the statute and therefore, once the expenditure is found to be revenue in nature, the same is allowable to the assessee in the year of incurrence thereof - once expenditure is allowed as revenue expenditure, deprecation allowed is to be reversed. - Decided in favor of assessee. Disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A - Held that:- it is undisputed fact that the assessee has not earned any exempt dividend income during the impugned AY - Decided against the revenue. Claim of deduction towards advances written-off - Held that:- the justification / basis of the same or the circumstances under which these have been written-off is not clear from the record, In principle, while approving the submissions that the business losses written-off in ordinary course of business were allowable to assessee as business loss - Matter remanded back for verification. Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) for late deposit of TDS amount - Held that:- the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) as made by Finance Act, 2010 was retrospective in nature and therefore the amount of TDS which is deposited late but before due date of filing of return of income enables the assessee to claim the deduction of the expenditure in the concerned year itself. - Decided in favor of assessee. Payment of compounding fee to RBI for default in obtaining approval form RBI for the purpose of FIPB and FEMA - Claim of expenditure u/s 37(1) - Held that:- the assessee applied for postSodexo facto approval of the same from FIPB which was granted subject to compounding of the same by Reserve Bank of India [RBI]. The aforesaid lapse, in the opinion of assessee, was merely procedural defect in nature and was in the nature of condonation subject to pecuniary payment and therefore, not hit by the explanation to Section 37(1). - Decided in favor of assessee.
|