Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>ITAT decision: Service income classification, royalty deduction, lease rent disallowance, software expenses categorization</h1> <h3>Yum! Restaurants (India) Private Ltd Versus ITO, Ward 18 (1), New Delhi</h3> Yum! Restaurants (India) Private Ltd Versus ITO, Ward 18 (1), New Delhi - TMI Issues Involved:1. Classification of service income from YRAPL as 'income from other sources' vs. 'business income.'2. Disallowance of royalty expenditure paid to YRAPL.3. Hypothetical disallowance of administrative expenses attributable to YRMPL.4. Disallowance of lease rent paid for rent-free accommodation of the managing director.5. Disallowance of tax depreciation claim under Section 32.6. Disallowance of software expenses by categorizing them as capital expenditure.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of Service Income:The assessee contested the classification of service income from YRAPL as 'income from other sources' instead of 'business income.' The ITAT referenced its previous decisions, which consistently treated similar income as business income due to the continuous and systematic nature of the services provided since 1998-99. The ITAT emphasized that the main objects clause of the assessee's memorandum of association supports the classification as business income. Consequently, the ITAT upheld that the service income should be classified as 'business income.'2. Disallowance of Royalty Expenditure:The assessee challenged the disallowance of a portion of royalty expenditure paid to YRAPL. The ITAT referred to its earlier rulings, which allowed such expenditures as business expenses. The ITAT noted that the royalty payments were made under a technology license agreement approved by the Government of India and were within the prescribed limits. The payments were necessary for the assessee's business operations and were considered genuine business expenditures. Thus, the ITAT allowed the full deduction of the royalty expenditure.3. Hypothetical Disallowance of Administrative Expenses:The assessee disputed the hypothetical disallowance of administrative expenses attributed to its subsidiary, YRMPL. The ITAT reiterated its previous decisions, which recognized that YRMPL, a not-for-profit entity, was set up to handle advertising and promotional activities for the assessee and its franchisees. The ITAT found no basis for allocating 50% of the assessee's administrative expenses to YRMPL, as the expenses were directly related to the assessee's business operations. Therefore, the ITAT allowed the full deduction of the administrative expenses.4. Disallowance of Lease Rent:The assessee objected to the disallowance of lease rent paid for the managing director's accommodation. The ITAT upheld its earlier decision, which allowed only a portion of the rent as reasonable and disallowed the excess amount as excessive under Section 40A(2)(b). The ITAT found the rent paid to be excessive compared to the fair market value and upheld the disallowance of the excess amount.5. Disallowance of Tax Depreciation Claim:The assessee contested the disallowance of a portion of its tax depreciation claim. The ITAT referred to its prior rulings, which allowed depreciation on assets used for business purposes, including those provided to employees. The ITAT emphasized that under the block of assets concept, individual assets lose their identity, and physical possession is not essential for claiming depreciation. Therefore, the ITAT allowed the full depreciation claim.6. Disallowance of Software Expenses:The assessee challenged the disallowance of software expenses categorized as capital expenditure. The ITAT upheld its earlier decision, which treated software expenses as capital expenditure but directed the Assessing Officer to verify whether the expenses were for upgradation or acquisition of new software. The ITAT also directed that depreciation should be allowed on the capitalized software expenses.Conclusion:The ITAT's judgment addressed each issue comprehensively, often referencing its prior decisions to ensure consistency. The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeals on most grounds, emphasizing the continuous and systematic nature of the business activities, the necessity of the expenditures for business operations, and adherence to the block of assets concept for depreciation claims. The disallowance of lease rent was partially upheld, and the issue of software expenses was remanded for further verification.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found